Full text of "Opinions and declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature"

See other formats

ee eae

ads Nt Hobe
Hit i fight
tat

at apt ty ae
hut wt tn 0

- Gam se

eee

See SSeS eS ee
Snot
are

BHT 1h } et

inh i
pit a i ta
ed a Hy
We bbe

“oat —

Ao et,

is ue
sche} nibsdad
. NEE
i *

oe 6 aS =

ee ee

hates

af ry ay oman tame,
“ ee a

=
ic

Ss
Seoectens
SSS ESSE
¥

<=é

ates
ao

SPEsSpeet sie

Sears

otek Jat
Maye?) we Ai a
wie ih 6) ideal

Hd CHEB

pi Sea Se =

ier Fer ie a Rot a ee

sntitars tk tials
4 nt t2 Hh High {|
; ae th

Sos 3
Sate toe

aoe
2 Fw ey Se ee =

oi eee
at

hall
no:

Sere

a han ie
1 uD at
yi in A) i ht

dt dilated aii! bs
ue ‘aly

Gan aoe es
Re

NA
xe
Ps
yin
le
i
itt
te?
ot
\

4 he antl
iat Ae [Gad at W a
i v
Taibo tae
Aye

ame
——
a

Ses seer we

==
<3

Passe
3

ay ike ES

rete

See ee Se ses Soe a a Es ee eee ee ee

yt aay uae 4 4 aE : aed

p) i PARAL HOLY ny ny he
ate ny a " Ke ‘ Pret yea “if ‘di yu fi + +4 ial i Py Bn a

ele eat at ak iis rat y A REC ATT Mae MAC Ty sgl Paty ae yet ; nay

y GUAT see. i Hid yaaa FG) hd beget POW ty i Peale a is We ibe th LS ag a

he - ‘ i AR a - i at H i Hf ‘i

aoe a

a BS
Pe a ee

; 4
irish este qiraitt Fe H a! ¢ ie 21a fas ohh bei
ie sib in ‘hi ist i ih ah bark ptt hed ein 0
Ne sate } j aged sede! } Ly i eh th

My wie)
1 ge hen he
i Mine
a Tea
at, ; My on
ave hel Liye pagal j 4
Yoo ae Me ite)

j i yet

i a

ie ph ed
iia Mit im
i nt rae

iyrad

len

2Si2stEs ‘ond

eta
anes stan fh i
Heide Le a i XG Wino

ayaa A

hea

7 hast fst
oh Carin

is aa or) el An te Wale east gata Ne a

‘ tahoe AH ie ; 3

Hh feat

aor,

Rees
Esty
ms
=

i iad
ih ve
ite, vei + aS! ‘ b
* itt iby sath iuih tg a Hen sh hanks
a itaahy 4p it At) inet ee i sa “f i ft
\ f

hea ". ) vi \

CW) WRN

ay! aah

\
4
im)
fs
a
Ri
t

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
rendered by the

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
" ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

| Bead by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

VOLUME 2, SECTION A

(comprising Declarations 10-12 and
Opinions 134-160)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7

1939-1945
All Rights Reserved

Printed in Great Britain
BY RICHARD CLAY AND CO., LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK

JAN 31 1946
“aTiona ust

FOREWORD

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
have great pleasure in presenting to the zoological public Section
A of Volume 2 of their “ Opinions and Declarations,’ the first
completed unit of the series of volumes, to the publication of
which they committed themselves when in 1939 they adopted
their present publications programme.

Prior to 1939, the Opinions of the Commission (then their only
class of publication) were published on their behalf by the Smith-
sonian Institution, Washington, free of all charge to the Com-
mission which at that time possessed no funds of their own.
The decision taken in 1939 that the International Commission
should thenceforward act as their own publishers was the in-
evitable outcome of the transfer of the Secretariat of the Com-
mission from Washington to London, consequent upon the election
of the present Secretary to the Commission. Nevertheless, that
decision was not lightly taken, for it involved the assumption of
heavy responsibilities at a time when the Commission had at their
disposal only the most slender financial resources.

The International Commission are deeply conscious of the debt
of gratitude which they owe to the Smithsonian Institution for the
help freely and continuously accorded during the period of 27
years during which the first 133 of the Commission’s Opinions
were in process of publication. Further, the Commission owe
much to the interest shown in their work throughout that period
both by the Smithsonian Institution as a great national scientific
institution and also by the many members of its scientific staff
who contributed to the work of the Commission. The Interna-
tional Commission are happy to take this opportunity of bearing
witness to their obligations to the Smithsonian Institution and of
recording their grateful thanks for the invaluable aid rendered by
it for so many years. It is a matter of particular satisfaction to
the Commission that, although their headquarters are now in
Europe, the relations between the Commission and the Smithson-
ian Institution and the members of its scientific staff remain of the
closest and most cordial character.

At the present important turning-point in the development of
their work, the International Commission desire also to pay a
tribute to the great services rendered to them by the late Dr.

III

IV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Charles Wardell Stiles during the period of 37 years in which he
held the Office of Secretary to the Commission. Dr. Stiles was
appointed Secretary to the Commission on the establishment of
that Office in 1898 and held it continuously until 1935, when ill-
health and advancing age made it necessary for him to relinquish
that post. Dr. Stiles brought to the service of the Commission a
unique combination of gifts, prominent among which was a deep-
seated conviction of the need for co-operation on the international
plane in regard to those matters of common concern to all zoolo-
gists which by their nature were incapable of settlement upon a
purely national basis. These gifts, coupled with great energy and
a remarkable capacity for perseverance, enabled Dr. Stiles to
play an invaluable part in guiding the fortunes of the Com-
mission amid the difficulties and dangers which inevitably beset
the path of any international body during the early years of its
existence. It is a particular source of regret to the International
Commission that Dr. Stiles should have died during the war and
thus has not lived to see the completion of the present volume. If
it had not been for his long and devoted labours on their behalf,
the Commission might never have acquired the strength necessary
to carry this task to a successful issue. |

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

29th October 1945.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

INTRODUCTORY NOTE

I. The decision of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to publish the present
work

II. The decision to publish volume 2 before volume 1

III. The decision to include Oe laaaions as well as
Opinions in the present work

IV. The lay-out of the present work

V. The decision to publish the present volume in two
Sections

VI. The importance of Corrigenda
VII. Retrospect and Prospect

Page

IX
IX

Sal
UL

OL:

XV
XV

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS INCLUDED IN SECTION

A OF VOLUME 2
Declarations 10-12

DECLARATION 10.—On the importance of forming specialist
groups for the study of the nomenclature of particular
divisions of the Animal Kingdom

DECLARATION I1.—On the need for a clear indication in the

description of new genera and species of the Order and.

Family involved
DECLARATION 12.—On the question of breaches of the Code
of Ethics (Declaration supplementary to Declaration 1)
Opinions 134-160

OPINION 134.—On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to species described
in his Neuere Bewtrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858

OPINION 135.—The suppression of the so-called “ Erlangen
List ’’ of 1801

XVII

VI OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Page

OPINION 136.—Ofinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considévations générales sur
lordre naturel des Animaux composant les classes des
Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau
méthodique de leurs genres disposés en famulles, Paris,

18Io b : ; : 3 ; Mee ppc)

OPINION 137.—On the relative precedence to be accorded to
certain generic names published in 1807 by Fabricius and
Hiibner respectively for identical genera in the Lepido-
ptera Rhopalocera . : . é ; ; he

OPINION 138.—On the method by which the amendment to
Article 25 of the International Code adopted at the Buda-
pest Meeting of the International Zoological Congress,
relating to the replacement of invalid names, should be
interpreted : : ; : : : 2 26

OPINION I Ag. ihe names Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803] and
Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera added to the
Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology : : SBS

OPINION 140.—On the method of forming the family names
for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves) and for M pis
Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta) . A7

OPINION 141.—On the principles to be observed in interpret-
ing Article 4 of the International Code relating to the
naming of families and subfamilies ’ : 55

OPINION 142.—Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille,
1810 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) : se OZ.

OPINION 143.—On the method of forming the family name
for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hemi-
ptera) ; : ee aOr

OPINION 144.—On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy,
1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) . 89

OPINION 145.—On the status of names first published in
works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and subse-
quently published in other works OS)

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

OPINION 146.—Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius,
1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)

OPINION 147.—On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Article 34 of the International Code in relation to
the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgeneric
names of the same origin and meaning as names previously
published .

OPINION 148.—On the principles to be observed in interpret-
ing Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation
to the availability of generic names proposed as emenda-
tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the
same origin and meaning

OPINION 149.—Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera
(Insecta) added to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology

OPINION 150.—On the dates of publication of the several
portions of Htibner (J.), Verzerchniss bekannter Schmett-
linge [sic], 1816-[ 1826]

OPINION I151.—On the status of the names Lasius Panzer,
[1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasizus Fabricius,
[1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) :

OPINION 152.—On the status of the generic names in the
Order Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800 by
J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle mene ane des Mouches a
deux atles . :

OPINION 153.—On the status of the names ee Latreille,
[1802-1803], and Dryinus Latreille, ade ee Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) .

OPINION 154.—On the status of the names lee iiien
Serville, 1831, and pee Fieber, eee ee Insecta,
Order Orthoptera)

OPINION 155.—On the status of the names Callimome
Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus
Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

OPINION 156.—Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius,
1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)

VII
Page

109

133
145

I61

169

181
197
209

227

239

VIII OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Page
OPINION 157.—Three names in the Order Hymenoptera
(Class Insecta) added to the i List ah Generic Names.

in Zoology . ; 251

OPINION 158.—On the status of the name Locusta Lie
1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) . : 263

OPINION 159.—On the status of the names Ephialtes seine
1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius, [| 1804-
1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, ne ees Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) . ' : ; 2a

OPINION 160.—On the status of the names Moin Scopoli,
1777, Anguillulina Gervais & van Beneden, ee and
Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda) . 291

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON OPINIONS 137, 148,
AND 149

Opinion 137: Addition to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology of Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis
Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera) . : ; : at =|

Opinion 148: On the status of a generic name proposed as
an emendation of a previously published generic name,
where the earlier published of the two generic names is later
found to be invalid a. reason of ee a homonym or
otherwise . ‘ «iE)

Coe 149: On the cee whether “ Sphingonothus ”’

“ Sphingonotus’’ is the correct spelling of the name

Keay published as Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852 (Class
Insecta, Order Orthoptera) . ; : su SN)

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA .. (19)

ALPHABETICAL LIST OF THE NAMES OF AUTHORS
WHO HAVE EITHER CONTRIBUTED, OR HAVE
FURNISHED COMMENTS ON, PROPOSALS DEALT
WITH IN THE DECLARATIONS AND OPINIONS
INCLUDED IN SECTION A OF VOLUME 2 5 (2a)

INDEX TO SECTION A OF VOLUME 2 ae (27)

DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PORTIONS
OF SECTION A OF THE PRESENT VOLUME ._. (43)

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER os he

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. IX

INTRODUCTORY NOTE
By Francis HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

I. The decision of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to publish the present work.

The decision that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature should assume direct responsibility for the publica-
tion of its Opinions by becoming its own publisher was taken at
a meeting of the Plenary Conference between the President of the
Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in
London on roth June 1939 (Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting,
Conclusion 61+) under the authority of a Resolution adopted by
the International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in
September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion Io 2).
Previous to 1939, the Opimions rendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature had been published on
their behalf by the Smithsonian Institution, Washington. This
arrangement had been of the greatest value to the International
Commission for many years but its continuance was manifestly
impracticable after the transfer of the headquarters of the Com-
mission from Washington to London consequent upon the election
of the present Secretary to the Commission in succession to Dr.

C. W. Stiles.

II. The decision to publish volume 2 before volume 1.

2. It would have been possible in 1939 to treat the Opinions
(Opinions I-133) published by the Smithsonian Institution between
1910 and 1936 as constituting, as it were, a first series and therefore
to treat the present volume (commencing with Opinion 134) as
volume I of the new work Opinions rendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, but such a course would
have entailed many inconveniences and would have been pre-
judicial to the orderly development of the work of the International
Commission. |

3. [he Opinions published in the period ended 1936 contained

1 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 74.
2 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 48.

X OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

many important decisions by the International Commission and it
yas clearly desirable that these decisions should be readily
available to all students of zoological nomenclature. Unfor-
tunately, by 1939 these Ofimions were no longer available in this
way, since in the majority of cases the original issue had by that
time become exhausted and in consequence copies were no longer
obtainable. |
4. Quite apart from the foregoing considerations, there were
cogent reasons which made it desirable that a revised and anno-
tated edition of the earlier Opinions should be issued as soon as
possible. In the first place, the Régles Internationales de la
Nomenclature Zoologique® (International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature) had been amended in a number of important
particulars in the period which had elapsed since 1907, the year
in which the International Commission adopted the first of its
Opinions. In particular, the amendment of Article 25 of the
Régles Internationales adopted by the Tenth International Con-
gress of Zoology at its meeting held at Budapest in 1927 had auto-
matically restricted the scope of all Opinions previously rendered
by the International Commission in regard to the interpretation
of Article 25. Those Opimions remained valid and binding as
respects names published prior to midnight 31st December
1930/1st January 1931, the hour at which the Budapest amend-
ment became operative, but they were no longer applicable to
names published after that date.4 No note had ever been pub-
lished drawing attention to the restrictions so imposed upon
certain of the older of the Opinions rendered by the International
Commission, nor, even if such a note had been published, would
it have been fully effective, for there existed no means of ensuring
that it was brought to the attention of every reader of the older
Opinions. Clearly the only way by which the desired result
could be obtained would be by the issue of a revised edition of the
Opinions concerned, which would contain notes giving full
particulars of any modifications which had been made in the
* The English, German and Italian versions of the International Code
are no more than translations of the French text, which is the sole sub-
stantive text. Accordingly, the official title of the International Code is the
title given to it in the French text, namely ‘‘ Régles Internationales de la
Nomenclature Zoologique.”’
_* For the English version of the text of Article 25 of the Régles Interna-
tionales as amended by the Tenth International Congress of Zoology at
Budapest in 1927, together with notes thereon, see NoTE 3 to Opinion 1

(1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 76-78).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. XI

decisions recorded in those Opinions consequent upon amendments
made in the Régles Internationales.

5. In addition, a great deal of bibliographical work had been
done by numerous workers in the period which had elapsed since
the publication of the earlier of the Commission’s Opinions. In
consequence, it was now known that some of the bibliographical
references cited in those Opinions required amendment. For this
-and similar reasons, it had become evident also that some of the
entries in Opinions relating to the placing of names on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology contained errors which it was
desirable should be corrected at the earliest possible moment.
It was felt also that the value of the earlier Opinions would be
greatly enhanced if an edition was available in which full biblio-
graphical references were given for all the names discussed.
Finally, there was clearly an urgent need for a full subject index
of the older Opinions, since, through the lack of such an index, it
had in the course of years become increasingly difficult for readers
to trace particular decisions taken by the Commission in those
Opinions. No really satisfactory index could, however, be con-
structed until there was in existence an edition of those Opzmions
continuously paged throughout.

6. It was for these reasons that it was decided in 1939 that the
first volume of the proposed work Opinions rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should be
reserved for an annotated re-issue of Opinions 1-133 and therefore
that the Ofimions recording the decisions taken at Lisbon in 1935
should be published in volume 2 of that work.

III. The decision to include Declarations as well aS Opinions in
the present work.

7. At the meeting of the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology held at Monaco in 1913, the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature adopted a number of important
resolutions on general questions relating to zoological nomencla-
ture. Similar resolutions were adopted at later meetings of the
International Congress of Zoology, including three at the Twelfth
International Congress held at Lisbon in 1935. Owing to the
general character of the subjects dealt with in these resolutions,
they were never formally rendered and published as Opinions.
In consequence, the only place in which it was possible to find
these resolutions was in the Comptes Rendus of the Congresses at

XII OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

which they had been adopted by the International Commission.
This method of publication had the unfortunate result that the
texts of these resolutions were inaccessible to most zoologists. It
was only natural, therefore, that these resolutions had not secured
the amount of attention which their importance demanded.
When, therefore, the whole position as regards the publications of
the Commission was reviewed in 1942 consequent upon the re-
opening of the Secretariat (which owing to the state of war it had
been necessary to close in 1939), it was decided to remedy the
position described above by collecting the resolutions in question
and rendering them as formal documents under the title “ De-
clarations.”’ °

8. At the time when this decision was taken, it was contem-
plated that. the Commission’s Declarations would be issued in a
separate work entitled “ Declarations rendered by. the Interna-
tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.’ On further
consideration, it was felt that this course was open to objection,
partly because the relatively small number of Declarations so far
rendered made it inevitable that a considerable time would
necessarily need to elapse before the first volume of the projected
work could be completed and partly because it was considered that
it would be more appropriate that the Commission’s Declarations
should be published jointly with their Opinions. It was accord-
ingly decided in the summer of 1943 that the title of the work
already in course of publication should be expanded to “ Opinions
and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature,’ that Declarations 1-9, which embodied
resolutions adopted by the Commission at various dates during
the period in which Dr. Stiles was Secretary to the Commission,
should be published in volume 1, together with Opinions 1-133,
which had been adopted by the Commission during the same
period, and that Declarations 10-12, which had been adopted by
the Commission in 1935 at their Lisbon Session, should be
published in volume 2, in which the Opimions adopted at the same
Session were then in process of being published.

IV. The lay-out of the present work.

g. When in 1939 it was decided to bring the present work into
existence, the International Commission were confronted with a
large mass of arrears of work, for at that time Opinions had not

5 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : xxxvi.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. XIII

been published in regard to any of the forty-eight nomenclatorial
problems on which decisions had been reached at the Session of
the Commission held at Lisbon in 1935. In order, therefore, to
render possible the publication of each Opinion immediately it
was completed, it was decided that each Opinion should be pub-
lished as a separate Part. Successive Parts were paged con-
tinuously (in Arabic numerals), in order to render possible the
construction of a subject index on the completion of the volume.

10. In view of the fact that, as originally contemplated, the
present volume would contain only Opinions,® it was not thought
necessary at the outset to allot a Part No. to the Part containing
each Opinion, for it was considered that the fact that the Opinions
were themselves numbered in consecutive sequence would provide
a sufficient indication of the order in which successive Parts
should be arranged for binding when the volume was completed.
In order, however, to serve as a further safeguard, the numbers
of the pages comprised in each Part were noted in a prominent
place on the front page of each Opinion.

tr. When, however, it was decided in the summer of 1943 to
include Declarations as well as Opinions in this and other volumes
of the present work, it became necessary to review this matter,
since, unless special action was taken, each Declaration would
inevitably be allotted page numbers immediately following those
of the preceding Part containing an Ofimion. The result would
be that, when the volume was bound, the Declarations would be
intermingled with the Opinions in the order in which they had
been published. It was felt that this would be inconvenient and
that it would be much more satisfactory if arrangements could be
made to secure that in the completed volume the Declarations
were grouped together and placed before the Opinions. It was
accordingly decided that the Declarations should. be given a
different pagination from that allotted to the Opmmions. Since
the latter had already been allotted pagination in Arabic numerals,
it was decided that the pages of the Declarations should be
numbered in small Roman numerals.

12. The decision to publish Declarations and Opinions in the
same volume made it necessary also to allot a Part No. to each
Declaration and Opinion so published, since otherwise it would
not have been possible for subscribers to be sure that their sets
were complete. The eleven unnumbered Parts (containing
Opimions 134-144) already published were accordingly treated

6 See paragraphs 7 and 8 above.

XIV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

as though they had been issued as Parts 1 to 11 and the next Part
to be issued (containing Opinion 145) was given the Part No. 12.
The three Declarations adopted by the International Commission
at their Lisbon Session (Declarations 10-12) were later published
asePakis fo, ro and: 22.

V. The decision to publish the present volume in two Sections.

13. One of the objects which the International Commission
have set themselves is so to arrange their work as to eliminate all
unnecessary delays both in reaching decisions on questions sub-
mitted to them and also in publishing Ofimions on such questions
as soon as they have been settled. It was with this object in view
that at the outset 7 each Opinion was published as a separate
Part, thereby avoiding the sometimes considerable delays which
were inevitable when six or more Opinions were published as a
single number. When the present volume was started, there
were 48 Opinions and 3 Declarations relating to matters on which
decisions had been taken at Lisbon and it was obvious therefore
that a considerable period would necessarily elapse before it
-would be possible to make a start with the publication of the
Opinions adopted by the Commission subsequent to their Lisbon
Session. After careful consideration, it was decided in the autumn
of 1944 that the best course would be to allot the whole of volume
2 of the present work to the Opinions and Declarations adopted
at Lisbon and at the same time to make an immediate start with
the publication of the post-Lisbon Opinions as Parts of volume 3
of the present work. This decision involved an increased delay
in the publication of the last instalment of the Lisbon Opinions,
but this disadvantage was far outweighed by the great gain
secured through enabling the Commission at once to publish their
most recent Opinions and thus get into a position in which in
future they could publish any Opinion or Declaration immediately
it was adopted.

14. One of the effects of the foregoing decision was to commit
the Commission to publishing in volume 2 of the present work
Opinions 134-181 and Declarations 10-12, making a total of 51
Parts, exclusive of a concluding Part containing the title page and
index to the volume. In the year which has elapsed since the
above decision was taken considerable progress has been made
with the publication of Parts belonging to the present volume and

* See paragraph 9.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. XV

it is now clear that, when it is completed, the volume will contain
some 600 pages. This is too large a volume for convenient
reference and it has accordingly been decided to divide the volume
into two Sections (Sections A and B), each provided with a title
page and indexes, thereby making it possible to bind the volume
in two portions, each of a convenient size, for purposes of reference.
As the three Declarations and the earlier Ofimions included in the
volume were, on the average, shorter than the later Opinions, it
was decided that the most convenient arrangement would be to
include in Section A Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160,
leaving Opinions 161-181 for publication in Section B.

my As the earlier of the Parts allotted to Section B had
already been published by the time that this decision was taken,
it was necessary to adopt a different method of pagination for the
indexes to Section A. It was accordingly decided that these
should be given page numbers in Arabic type enclosed in round
brackets. At the same time it was decided that the Table of
Contents and Introductory Note to be published in the same sheet
as the title page of Section A should be given page numbers in
capital Roman numerals.

VI. The importance of Corrigenda.

mothe late Wr. C. Davies Sherborn at the end of the first
volume of his monumental Index Animalium wrote the following

wise words regarding the importance of “ Corrigenda ’’ :—

In a book of reference, the first pages which should be studied are those
containing the “‘ corrigenda,’’ as they represent the sum of the compiler’s
labours after the main work has passed the press.

17. Dr. Sherborn’s words apply to the publications of an
institution such as the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature just as much as to compilations by individual
specialists. Zoologists are therefore particularly invited im-
mediately to study the supplementary notes on Opinions 137,
148 and 149 which appear on pages (5) to (18) of the present
volume and the minor corrections and additions listed on pages

(19) to (20).

VII. Retrospect and Prospect.

18. The first three Ofimions included in the present volume
were published on 28th August 1939, only four days before the

XVI INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

outbreak of war in Europe. Then followed a period of thirty-
three months in which owing to war conditions it was impossible
to continue the work of the Commission. A fresh start was,
however, made in June 1942 and thereafter the publication of
Opinions proceeded steadily. Today, the present Part, the last of
Section A of the present volume, is completed almost exactly
six years after publication began.

19. After the innumerable difficulties enGatnkenel during the
war years, it is a matter both of relief and satisfaction to the
International Commission that now within a fortnight of the end
of the war they are able to offer the present volume to thé zoolo-
gists of the world. That this has been possible has been due in
large part to the unstinted support which in spite of their many
urgent pre-occupations zoologists have throughout the war con-
sistently accorded to the International Commission in its deter-
mination to maintain intact the fabric of international co-
operation until upon the return of peace it became possible
actively to resume work on zoological nomenclature. That the
efforts of the Commission in this regard have been successful
affords a striking testimony to the devotion of zoologists to their
special studies, and offers the brightest hopes for a rapid and
fruitful extension of work in this field now that the war at last is
over.

20. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
desire to take this opportunity of expressing their grateful thanks
to all the Scientific Institutions, Learned Societies and individual
zoologists who during the last six years have contributed to the
work of the Commission, either by making gifts to the funds of the
Commission or by subscribing to its publications or by placing at
the disposal of the Commission their special knowledge on ques-
tions on which the Commission have sought their aid.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

2nd September 1945.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

VOLUME 2

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on behalf of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by the International Trust at its Publications Office
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1939—1955

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION AT LISBON
IN 1935 OF THE ‘‘ OPINIONS ”? AND *‘ DECLARATIONS ”’
~ PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME

A. The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D. (The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts,
England).

Secretary (absent from Lisbon Session on account of illhealth) : Dr. Charles
Wardell Stiles (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum, Washington,
D.C., U.S.A.).

Acting Secretary (Lisbon Session) : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.B.E. (London).

B. The Members of the Commission

Class 1937

Professor H. B. FANTHAM (McGill University, Montreal, Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College,
Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A.).

Professor Filippon SILVEsTRI (Istituto Superiore Agraria, Portici, Napoli, Italy).

Dr. Leonard STEJNEGER (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum,
Washington, D.C., U.S.A.).

Dr. ae STONE (Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania,
U.S.A.).

Class 1940

Professor Karl APSTEIN (Zoologisches Institut der Universitat, Berlin).

Professor Candido BOLIVAR y PIELTAIN (Museo Nacional de Ciencias Naturales,
Madrid, Spain).

Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (British Museum (Natural History), London).

Professor Teiso ESAkI (Kyushu Imperial University, Fukuoka City, Japan).

Dr. Charles Wardell STILEs (Smithsonian Institution, U.S. National Museum,

Washington, D.C., U.S.A.).

Class 1943 |

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Museo de la Plata, La Plata, F.C.S., Argentina).

Mr. Frederick CHAPMAN (National Museum, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (London).

Dr. Karl JORDAN (The Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts, England).

Professor Jacques PELLEGRIN (Muséum National d’ Histoire Naturelle, Paris).

Professor Rudolf RIcHTER (Natur-Museum Senckenberg, Frankfurt a. Main
Germany).

C. Alternate Members of the Commission at the Session held
at Lisbon in 1935

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL CUnstituto Butantan, Sao Paulo, Brazil).

Professor Walter ARNDT (Zoologisches Museum der Universitat, Berlin).

Dr. Max BEIER (Zoologisches Abteilung, Naturhistorisches Museum, Vienna).

Professor J. Chester BRADLEY (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.).

Dr. Th. MorTENSEN (Zoologiske Universitetets Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark).

Professor Hiroshi OHSHIMA (Amakusa Marine Biological Laboratory, Kyushu
Imperial University, Fukuoka City, Japan).

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
‘‘ DIRECTIONS ”? PUBLISHED IN THE PRESENT VOLUME

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (2th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (Ast January 1947).

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948).

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary).

Dr. ae Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948).

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948).

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950).

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950).

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History), London) (9th
June 1950).

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski CUnstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950).

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (5th July 1950).

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdat
zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July 1950).

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-
President).

ae TR Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August
1953).

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President).

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953).

Professor Béla Hank6é (Mezogazdasdgi Muzeum, Budapest, Hungary) (12th
August 1953).

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York,
N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953).

Mr. P. C. -Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th
August 1953).

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Heider The Nether-
lands) (12th August 1953).

(V)

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

(continued)

C. The Staff of the Secretariat of the Commission

_ Honorary Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Honorary Personal Assistant to the Secretary: Mrs. M. F. W.
Hemming

Honorary Archivist : Mr. Francis J. Griffin, A.L.A.
Administrative Officer: Mrs. S. C. Watkins, M.A.
“Official Lists” Section: Miss D. N. Noakes, B.Sc.

Ss Pad: Mrs. J. H. Newman
ecrelarial : \ Ntiss D. G. Williams

Indexer : Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc.
Translator : Mrs. R. H. R. Hopkin

INTERNATIONAL TRUST FOR ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

Chairman: The Right Hon. Walter Elliot, C.H., M.C., F.R.S..,
M.P.

Managing Director and Secretary: Mr. Francis Hemming,
C.M.G., C.B.E.

Publications Officer: Mrs. C. Rosner

ADDRESSES OF THE COMMISSION AND THE TRUST

Secretariat of the Commission: 28 Park Village East, Regent’s
Park, London, N.W.1.

Offices of the Trust : 41 Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

(V1)

FOREWORD

The present volume is devoted to the Opinions and Declarations
in which are embodied the Rulings adopted by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at its Session held at
Lisbon in September 1935. This volume was the first to be started
after the transfer of the Secretariat of the Commission from
Washington, D.C., to London and was in consequence the first
volume for the publication of which direct responsibility was
assumed by the Commission itself. The first three Parts of this
volume (containing Opinions 134 to 136) were published on
28th August 1939. The outbreak of war in Europe a few days
later inevitably caused great delays, first, because from September
1939 to the summer of 1942 the records of the Commission were
evacuated from London to the country as an insurance against
the risk of destruction by air-raids, second, because of the handi-
caps imposed by paper-rationing, shortages of labour at the
printing works and similar causes. Nevertheless, by June 1945
it had been found possible to publish thirty-one further Parts
(containing Opinions 137 to 164 and Declarations 10 to 12). At
this stage it was decided to split the volume into two continuously-
paged Sections (Sections A and B) and to issue at once the title
page and indexes for Section A. This decision was prompted
partly by the fact that, as was already evident, the volume when
completed would be of considerable size and partly by the
consideration that, having regard to the difficulties of the hour,
it would inevitably be a considerable time before the entire volume
could be completed. Further Parts were published in the summer
and autumn of 1945 and in 1946. The last of the Opinions
allotted to this volume (Opinion 181) was published in February
1947.

2. Owing to the need for concentrating the whole of the
resources of the Commission upon preparations for the Session
of the Commission to be held in Paris in July 1948 it had not been
found possible before the opening of that Session to arrange
for the completion of the present volume by the preparation
of the necessary concluding Part containing the requisite indexes.
At that Session the Commission received three General Directives
affecting the form of its Opinions, each of which affected the
Opinions published in the present volume. Under these Direct-
ives, which were retrospective in effect, the Commission was

(VIID)

required :—(1) to place on the Official List of Generic Names
in Zoology every name accepted by it in any of its Opinions as the
oldest available name for the genus concerned ; (2) to insert in
each entry on that Official List a statement of the gender attribut-
able to the generic name concerned ; (3) to place on the then
newly-established Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
(then styled the Official List of Specific Trivial Names in Zoology)
the specific name (then styled the “trivial name ’”’) of the type
species of every genus, the name of which was placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, if the oldest available
name for the species concerned, and, if that name was not con-
sidered the oldest such name, to place on this Official List whatever
that name may be. No progress was made in the required
review of the Opinions included in the present volume during
the period between the Paris (1948) and Copenhagen (1953)
International Congresses of Zoology, for the whole of that period
was taken up with the preparation and publication of the Official
Records of the Paris Congress, with the publication of applica-
tions on individual problems in the Bulletin of Zoological Nomen-
clature, with the issue of Voting Papers on the applications so
published, and, during the last eighteen months before the opening
of the Copenhagen Congress, with preparations for the discussions
on nomenclature arranged to take place during, and immediately
before, that Congress both at Meetings of the International
Commission and of the Colloquium on Zoological Nomen-
clature which had been summoned by the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature. Further General Directives were
imposed upon the Commission by the Copenhagen Congress
in relation to the placing on the Official Lists and Official Indexes
then established the names of taxa belonging to the family-group
and higher categories. The same Congress established an Official
List of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature
and a corresponding Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works
in Zoological Nomenclature, and instructed the Commission to
place on this List and Index the title of every book or paper which
it might either validate or declare to be available for zoological
nomenclature or, as the case might be, suppress or otherwise
reject for nomenclatorial purposes. As in the case of the Directives
issued by the Paris Congress, these Directives were retrospective
in effect. Each of these Directives necessitated therefore a
further review of the Rulings given in the Opinions comprised in

(IX)

the present volume in order to bring the Rulings given in them
fully into line with the Directives issued by the Congress.

3. In the early part of 1954 two decisions were taken affecting
the procedure to be adopted for giving effect to the instructions
received from the Congress in regard to the review of Opinions
published prior to the Paris Session of the Commission. First,
it was decided to take decisions forthwith on all the matters
covered by the foregoing instructions with the exception of
questions relating to family-group names based upon the names
of genera placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
by Rulings given in Opinions adopted prior to the Copenhagen
Congress, this exception being made because the paucity of
information regarding the literature relating to family-group
names made it likely that the preparation of proposals on this
subject for submission to the Commission would require a much
longer period than would the preparation of proposals needed
to secure compliance with the other Directives issued to the
Commission by the Congress. Second, it was decided (a) that
from that time onwards no Opinion should be issued until, subject
to the qualification noted above, all the Directives issued by the
Congress had been duly complied with, and (b) that as regards
subjects dealt with in Opinions already published the decisions
taken should be incorporated in the volume concerned. At the
Same time it was decided to press on as rapidly as possible with
the taking of decisions in relation to family-group-name problems
involved and to promulgate decisions in regard thereto in whatever
might at the date in question be the current volume in the present
series.

4. In conformity with the decisions described in the preceding
paragraph the Commission has now adopted Rulings on all the
matters there discussed and in consequence the decisions recorded
in the present volume in relation to individual nomenclatorial
problems have been brought up to the same level of completeness
as that attained in the later volumes. The Rulings so adopted
by the Commission have been embodied in ihe form of Directions.
The Directions in relation to Rulings adopted by the Commission
at its Lisbon Session form the concluding Parts of the present
volume. The inconvenience attaching to the fact that inevitably
part of the Ruling in any given case is embodied in an Opinion

(X)

and part in one of the much later Directions has been mitigated,
so far as possible, by the very full nature of the subject index now
published for the present volume.

5. At the time of the publication of the Opinions comprised
in the present volume it was the practice of the Commission to
render as Opinions not only Rulings adopted in relation to
particular names and particular books but also Rulings containing
authoritative interpretations of the provisions of the Régles,
though, following a decision taken by the Commission at its
Session held in Lisbon in 1935, Rulings of this latter type were
no longer included (as had formerly been the practice) in Opinions
dealing also with individual nomenclatorial problems. By a
Directive given to the Commission by the Paris Congress no
Ruling interpreting a provision in the Rég/es has since been rendered
in an Opinion, all such Rulings having been promulgated in the
** Declarations’ Series, which that Congress directed should in
future be reserved for that purpose. Thus, if the foregoing
procedure had been in force at the time of the preparation of the
present volume, the eight Rulings relating to the interpretation
of the Régles there rendered as Opinions would have appeared
in the form of Declarations.

6. Since the adoption at Lisbon in 1935 of the Rulings relating
to the interpretation of the Régles given in the Opinions included
in the present volume, the Rég/es themselves have been the subject
of extensive reforms carried out by the Paris (1948) and Copen-
hagen (1953) International Congresses of Zoology. In most
cases the foregoing Rulings were incorporated in the Régles
by the first of these Congresses, but in certain instances reforms
carried through by that Congress or by the Copenhagen Congress
have led to the repeal, in whole or in part, of the Rulings given in
those Opinions. In these circumstances, it would, it is considered,
be undesirable to conclude the present volume without giving
an account of the present provisions in the Régiles in relation
to the questions dealt with in the foregoing Opinions. A summary
of the post-Lisbon development of the Rég/es in regard to these
matters is accordingly given in Appendix | to the present volume.
Similar information regarding the contents of the three Declarations
included in the present volume is given in Appendix 2.

(XI)

7. In four of the Opinions included in the present volume the
Rulings given by the Commission were of a provisional character
only. Particulars of subsequent developments in these cases are
given in Appendix 3.

8. Miss Joan Kelley, B.Sc., by whom the indexes for volumes
2 to 6 of this series have been prepared, has recently intimated
that pressure of other work will make it impossible for her to
continue to act as Indexer for the Commission. The Trust has
received this notification with great regret and desires to express
its grateful thanks to her for the valuable work which she has
performed in this field. The first draft of the index to the present
volume was prepared by Miss Kelley before she relinquished her
appointment. For the revision and completion of this index the
Trust has to thank Mrs. J. H. Newman, one of the senior members
of the Secretariat of the Commission.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

28 Park Village East,
Regent’s Park,
LONDON, N.W.1.

25th January 1955

" q Sop als i 9.
. ‘ ‘ neat hai 4
i
c a
7. 4 te i P f
‘ e ne, \
am
|
4 { d mt
ies i i
i, .
> _ Cc 7
A
vk
¥.
Hy
ror ‘
Sed He t
if i, ' 7 .
¥ Ab &
7
i 7
a 3
es : ws " \ 4 ; -
_ hei Ay ky 2 4 i hus Hea ie i 4 ST

TABLE OF CONTENTS

VOLUME 2, SECTION A

Sectional Title Page
Foreword
Table of Contents

Introductory Note he

** Declarations ’’ 1¢—12

DECLARATION 10 On the importance of forming
specialist groups for the study of the Nomenclature
of particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom

DECLARATION 11 On the need for a clear indication in
the description of new genera and species of the
Order and Family involved

DECLARATION 12 On the question of breaches of the
Code of Ethics (Declaration supplementary to Declara-
tion 1) ot te i

‘* Opinions *? 134—160

OPINION 134 On the method to be adopted in inter-
preting the Generic Names assigned by Freyer to
species described in his Neuere Beitrdge zur Schmetter-
lingskunde, 1833—1858 ..

OPINION 135 The suppression of the so-called “ Er-
langen List” of 1801... ve es i as

(XII)

XVII

(XIV)

OPINION 136 Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11
on the interpretation of Latreille’s Considérations
générales sur lordre naturel des animaux composant
les classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des Insectes
avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en
familles, Paris, 1810 ;

OPINION 137 On the relative precedence to be accorded
to certain generic names published in 1807 by
Fabricius and Hiibner respectively for identical genera
in the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera at

OPINION 138 On the Method by which the Amend-
ment to Article 25 of the International Code adopted
at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoo-
logical Congress, relating to the Replacement of
Invalid Names, should be Interpreted

OPINION 139 The names Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803]
and. Astata Latreille, 1796, in the ee added
to the Official List of Generic Names ..

OPINION 140 On the method of forming the family
names for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 ~— and for
Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta)

OPINION 141 On the principles to be observed in
interpreting Article 4 of the International Code
relating to the naming of families and subfamilies

OPINION 142 Suspension of the Rules for Satyrus
Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) .. se

OPINION 143 On the method of forming the family
name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemiptera). .

OPINION 144 On the status of the names Crabro
Geoffroy, 1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex
Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) ae

Page

35)

OPINION 145 On the status of names first published in
works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and
subsequently published in other works

OPINION 146 Suspension of the rules for Colias
Fabricius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera). .

OPINION 147 On the principles to be observed in
interpreting Article 34 of the International Code in
relation to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic
and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning
as names previously published ..

OPINION 148 On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code
in relation to the availability of generic names proposed
as emendations of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic
names of the same origin and meaning ue

OPINION 149 Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera
(Insecta) added to the is List a Generic Names
in Zoology. .

OPINION 150 On the dates of publication of the asvetial
portions of MHiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter
Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—[1826]

OPINION 151 On the status of the names Lasius
Panzer, [1801—1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius
Fabricius, [1804—1805], and Anthophora Latreille,
1803 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

OPINION 152 On the status of the generic names in the
Order Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800
by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification des
Mouches a deux ailes ee. a a

OPINION 153 On the status of the names Bethylus
Latreille, [1802—1803], and Dryinus Latreille, tiie
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) .

(XV)

Page

991.

109

123

133

145

161

169

181

197

(XVI)

OPINION 154 On the status of the names Phaneroptera
Serville, 1831, and Ty/opsis Fieber, 1853 ae Insecta,
Order Orthoptera)

OPINION 155 On the status of the names Callimome
Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus
Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) ..

OPINION 156 Suspension of the rules for Vanessa
Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) ..

OPINION 157 Three names in the Order Hymenoptera
(Class Insecta) added to the Rees List Be Generic
Names in Zoology

OPINION 158 On the status of the name Locusta
Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera)

OPINION 159 On the status of the names Ephialtes
Schrank, 1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla
Fabricius, [1804—1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst,
1829 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) ye

OPINION 160 On the status of the names Anguina
Scopoli, 1777, Anguillulina Gervais van Beneden, 1859,
and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda)

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON OPINIONS 137, 148
AND 149:

Opinion 137 Addition to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology of Morpho Fabricius, 1807,
Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius,
1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) . .

Opinion 148 On the status of a generic name pro-
posed as an emendation of a previously published
generic name, where the earlier published of the
two generic names is later found to be invalid
by reason of being a homonym or otherwise

Page

209

239,

251

263

ZIS

(3)

(11)

Opinion 149 On the question whether “ Sphingono-
thus’ or “* Sphingonotus’’ is the correct spelling
of the name originally published as Sphingono-
thus Fieber, 1852 Coats Insecta, Order Ortho-
ptera).. iis ip

VOLUME 2, SECTION B

Sectional Title Page

Foreword

‘** Opinions ’’ 161—181

OPINION 161 Suspension of the rules for Argynnis
Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) .

OPINION 162 Suspension of the rules for Bracon
Fabricius, Lek ated Vas Insecta, Order ee
optera)

OPINION 163 Suspension of the rules fon Euploea
Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) ..

OPINION 164 On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Article 30 of the International Code in relation
to the types of genera when two or more genera are
united on taxonomic grounds ..

OPINION 165 Need for the suspension of the rules for
Strymon Hubner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order wis
doptera) not established

OPINION 166 On the status of the names Pompilus
Fabricius, 1798, and Psammochares Latreille, 1796
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and of the
alleged generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (Class
Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea)

(XVII)

Page

(15)

[B.1]

B.I

307

319

347

352)

3)//5)

(XVIII)

OPINION 167 Suspension of the rules for Euthalia
Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) ..

OPINION 168 On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Article 30 of the International Code in relation
to the names of genera based upon erroneously deter-
mined species (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65)

OPINION 169 On the type of the genus Lycaeides
Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera),
a genus based upon an erroneously determined species

OPINION 170 Need for the suspension of the rules for
Prosopis Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order ae
ptera) not at present established ;

OPINION 171 Suspension of the rules for Nymphidium
Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) .

OPINION 172 On the interpretation of Article 30 of the
International Code in relation to the designation,
in abstracts and similar publications, of the types of
genera, the names of which were published on, or
before, 31st December 1930

OPINION 173 On the type of the genus Agriades
Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera based
upon an erroneously determined species As

OPINION 174 On the status of the names Ceraphron
Panzer, [1805], and Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) a

OPINION 175 On the type of the genus Polyommatus
Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera),
a genus based upon an erroneously determined species

Page

399

Ail

43]

443

459

A471

483

495

509

OPINION 176 On the type of Conulinus von Martens,

1895 (Class Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora)

(Opinion supplementary to Opinion 86)

OPINION 177 On the type of the genus Euchloé Hubner,
[1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a genus
based upon an erroneously determined species

OPINION 178 On the status of the names Serphus
Schrank, 1780, and Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 ss
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

OPINION 179 On the type of the genus Princeps Hubner,
[1807], and its synonym Orpheides Hubner, [1819]
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera based upon
an erroneously determined species a,

OPINION 180 On the status of the name Sphex Lin-
naeus, 1758, and Ammophila apy 1798 aces
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

OPINION 181 On the type of the genus Carcharodus
Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Spilothyrus Dupon-
chel, 1835 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera
based upon an erroneously determined species

** Directions ’? 2, 4—9

DIRECTION 2 Addition to the Official Lists and Official
Indexes of certain scientific names dealt with in
Opinions 161 to 181

DIRECTION 4 Addition to the Official Lists and Official
Indexes of certain scientific names and of the titles of
certain books dealt with in oe 134 to 160,
exclusive of Opinion 149 is a MF

DIRECTION 5 Addition to the Official Lists and. Official
Indexes of certain scientific names dealt with in
Opinion 149

(XIX)
Page

521

538

545

30)

569

613

629

653

(XX)

Page
DIRECTION 6 Addition to the Official List of Family-
Group Names in Zoology of the names MEROPIDAE
(Class Aves) and MEROPEIDAE and TINGIDAE (Class
Insecta) =. be a a 2 iy oc MAGGS
DIRECTION 7 Determination of the gender to be
attributed to certain generic names placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the
Rulings given in Opinions 134 to 181 se 68
DIRECTION 8 Co-ordination of two entries on the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology made in
Directions 4 and 5 respectively with corresponding
entries previously made by a Ruling given in Opinion
299 ms a i oe an as Bene iON)
DIRECTION 9 Determination of the gender to be
attributed to six generic names placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology me ae given
in Opinions 137, 149 and 154 _ .. see UE
APPENDICES
Appendix 1—Subsequent history of the interpretations
of the Régles given by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in eight Opinions
published in the present volume ee are Ge)
Opinion 138 .. ae a ig ae en
Opinion 141.0 2 er
Opinion 145 .. es es ai a Ra ee)
Opinion 147 .. bg ve ae Ms Sal) hoe
Opinion 148 .. ue at nai ei 2 24
Opinion 164 .. ae ee oe A sad es
Opinion 168...

Opinion 172 .. = a a oe Lt DOM

(XXT)

Page
Appendix 2—Subsequent history of the questions dealt
with in the Declarations published in the present
volume ae ae it. ue a ee PA
Declaration 10 ae a . oh eel
Declaration 11 am ae ae We ae I2T
Declaration 12 ae as He eon mile
Appendix 3—Notes on four individual cases of nomen-
clature on which interim decisions only were given
in Opinions published in the present volume - oe 9.
Opinion 152 .. ve Nhe i ee Ae eS,
Corot oe | 730
Opinion 165 .. ce a Hy i, ee ok
Opinion 170 .. ae ue ae a Pen Sie
Corrigenda (Sections A and B) a ae a ee
Index to authors of applications dealt with in the present
volume and comments on those applications. . Hae one
Subject index shee a ae ‘ Ms on a
Particulars of dates of publication of the several parts in
which the present volume was published o gi LOD

Instructions to Binders a ve 7 i a 767

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL’ NOMENCLATURE

Edited by -~
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G, C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 18. Pp. i—viii.

DECLARATION 10

On the importance of forming specialist
groups for the study of the nomenclature of
particular divisions of the Animal Kingdom

. LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International: Commission on
~ =:Zeological Nomenclature
- Sold at the Publications Office of the ommssion”
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S:W.7-:

; 1944

Price one shilling-and sixpence |

(All rights-reserved)

Issued 24th May, 1944 Spee

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant) .*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.5S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromyell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by.the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). “

DECLARATION 10.

ON THE IMPORTANCE OF FORMING SPECIALIST GROUPS
FOR THE STUDY OF THE NOMENCLATURE OF PARTICULAR
DIVISIONS OF THE ANIMAL KINGDOM.

DECLARATION.—The International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature earnestly hope that specialists in particular groups
of the Animal Kingdom will organise themselves for the study of
nomenclature in the same way as has been done in the case of
entomology and more recently in the ease of ornithology. The
International Commission attach great weight to recommendations
submitted by groups of specialists so formed ; but they feel bound
to reserve to themselves the right in all eases of deciding whether
recommendations so submitted are in conformity with the spirit of
the Code and are within the powers granted to the Commission at
successive meetings of the International Congress of Zoology.

At their meeting held at Lisbon on Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 7), Commissioner
Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) made a report on the
work done by the International Committee on Entomological
“Nomenclature (of which he was the Secretary) at their Session
held at Madrid during the Sixth International Congress of En-
tomology that had just closed. Arising out of the discussion on
the President’s report, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 2nd
Meeting, Conclusion 8) :— :

(a) recorded their earnest hope that specialists in particular groups of
the Animal Kingdom would organise themselves for the study of
nomenclature in the same way as had been done in the case of en-
tomology and more recently in the case of ornithology ;

(b) agreed to attach great weight to recommendations submitted ey
groups of specialists so formed; but

(c) felt bound to reserve to themselves the right in all cases of deciding
whether recommendations so submitted were in conformity with the
spirit of the Code and were within the powers granted to the Com-

mission at successive meetings of the International Congress of
Zoology.

2. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 13 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the

iv. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held en the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

3. The present Declaration was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the.
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—-Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger. so

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

4. The present Declaration was dissented from by no Commis-
sioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
neither present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates
did not vote on the present Declaration :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

“AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF, 78 PRESENT
DECLARATION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving |
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the International Commission as soon.as a
majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opznion is to be deemed to have been adopted ey the
Commission ; and

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I0. Vv

WHEREAS it has been decided that Op:mions dealing with certain
classes of subject are to be rendered under the title “‘ Declaration ”’
in lieu of the title “ Opzmon-’’ and that the rules:in the By-Laws
relating to the rendering of Opinions shall apply in like manner
to the rendering of Declarations ;

WHEREAS the present Declaration neither requires, to be valid,
the suspension of the rules, nor involes a reversal of any previous
Declaration or other Opinion rendered by the Commission ; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their concurrence in the present Declaration either personally
or through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in
Lisbon in September 1935;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Declaration on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Declara-
tion Number Ten (Declaration 10) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Declaration.

DonE in London, this eighteenth day of June, Nineteen Hun-
dred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International pon on
a Nomenclature. ° ;

De, _ Secretary to the I nternational C ommission ee
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Vi OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and

Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory,
including an account of the functions and powers of the Com-
mission and a summary of the work so far achieved); Part 2
(relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3
(containing the official records of the decisions taken by the
Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935).

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue
of which is now out of print). Parts 1-9 (containing Declarations
I-g) have now been published.

Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134.
Parts 1-21 (containing Declarations 10 and 11 and Opimions 134—
152) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are
given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other
Parts will be published shortly.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I0. vil

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most
gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made
payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological Nomen-

clature ’’ and crossed ‘** Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 19. Pp. ix—xvi. —

DECLARATION 11

On the need for a clear indication in the
description of new genera and species of the
Order and Family involved

LONDON :;
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1944 3

Price one shilling and sixpence

Issued 24th May, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

_ Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). hi
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U:S.A.). -
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.). |

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, $.W. 7.

Personal addvess of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and ©
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

DECLARATION 11.

ON THE NEED FOR A CLEAR INDICATION IN THE DE-
SCRIPTION OF NEW GENERA OR SPECIES OF THE ORDER AND
FAMILY INVOLVED.

DECLARATION.—It is highly desirable that every author when
publishing a new description should indicate clearly to what Order
and Family the genus or species so described belongs. Editors of
zoological journals and authors of zoological papers are particularly
invited to comply with this requirement.

At their meeting held at Lisbon on Monday, 16th September
1935, the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
had under consideration the following resolution adopted by the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at
their meeting held in Paris in 1932 and later confirmed by Section
VIII (Section on Nomenclature) of the Fifth International Con-
gress of Entomology and by the said Congress in Concilium
Plenum on the presentation of the report of the Secretary of the
Executive Committee :—

Descriptions isolées

Les auteurs de descriptions sont priés d’indiquer dans chaque travail
Vordre et la famille des insectes décrits.

2. The International Commission found themselves in complete’
agreement with the object sought by the International Congress of
Entomology, but considered that the scope of the decision desired
should be extended to cover descriptions of new genera and species
throughout the Animal Kingdom. The International Commission
accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
16) :— |

that it was highly desirable that every author when publishing a new

description should indicate clearly to what Order and Family the genus

or species so described belonged and that this matter should be brought
to the attention of editors’ of zoological journals and of authors of
zoological papers.

3. At their meeting held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17) Commissioner
_ Francis Hemming who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr.
C, W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with

xii OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commis-
sion to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported
that, in accordance with the request made by the Commission on
the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)),
he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report ;
that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered
by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not
doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before
the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time avail-
able it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of
paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been
reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As
agreed upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(ili)), he was therefore concentrating
upon those matters that appeared to be the more important.
Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it
was found impossible to include in the report, owing to the short-
ness of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress
on the basis of the records in the Official Record of Proceedings of
the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose,
Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously
agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the
Same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include
references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress,
and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having
been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates
present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved,
the statement by Commissioner Hemming and adopted the pro-
posals submitted by him, as recorded above, in-regard both to the
selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be
adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which,
for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the
: report.

~4..The question dealt with in the present Declaration was one
oe the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time
available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the
Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at
Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt
with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set
out in paragraph 3 above. |

a. ie piesa Declaration was concurred i in by the twelve (12)

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION II. Xiil

Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :— :

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

6. The present Declaration was dissented from by no Com-
missioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The
following five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at
Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the
present Declaration :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

AUTHORITY FOR PEP Ssswh vOr Tah PRESENT
DECLARATION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say
ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opimion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by
the Commission; and

WHEREAS it has been decided that Opinions dealing with certain
classes of subject are to be rendered under the title “‘ Declaration ”’
in lieu of the title “‘ Opinion’ and that the rules in the By-Laws
relating to the rendering of Opinions shall apply in like manner to
the rendering of Declarations; and

WHEREAS the present Declaration neither requires, to be valid,
the suspension of the rules nor involves a reversal of any previous
Declaration or other Opinion rendered by the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Declaration either in person or

XiV OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in
Lisbon in September 1935;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Declaration on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Declara-
tion Number Eleven (Declaration 11) of the said Commission. |

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Declaration.

Done in London, this nineteenth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION II. XV

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological N omenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :— ,

(a) proposals on zoological: nomenclature submitted to ‘the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134.
Parts 1-21 (containing Declarations 10 and 11 and Opinions 134-
152) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are
given on the wrappers to Parts I and 2 of the Bulletin. Other
Parts will be published shortly.

XV1 \INTERNATIONAL- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any braneh of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological —
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who. may be ina
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full |
particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are |
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. |

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most |
gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission |
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7. |
Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made |
payable to the ** International Commission on Zoological Nomen- |
clature ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 22. Pp. xvii—xxiv.

DECLARATION 12

On the question of breaches of the Code
of Ethics (Declaration supplementary to
Declaration 1)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1944

Price one shilling and sixpence

Issued 12th July, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission |

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant) .*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
_ Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). |

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).

Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission). —
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.3.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7.

ome

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

DECLARATION 12.

ON THE QUESTION OF BREACHES OF THE CODE
OF ETHICS (DECLARATION SUPPLEMENTARY TO
DECLARATION 1).

DECLARATION.— While re-affirming their fullest support of the
Resolution adopted on their recommendation by the Ninth Inter-

- national Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in

1913, laying down a Code of Ethies to be observed by zoologists
before publishing substitutes for generic or specific names that
are unavailable under Articles 34 and 36 of the Code, in those cases
where the author of the name to be so replaced is still alive, the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature are of the
considered opinion that the question whether the Code of Ethies

has been duly complied with in any given case is not a matter on
_ which they are authorised to enter.

On 4th June 1935 Professor Dr. Eduard Handschin, President
of the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft addressed a
letter to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

_ containing proposals for certain action to be taken where it could

be shown that a given author had repeatedly and deliberately
violated the Code of Ethics (Declaration 1). The discussion of
this question had originated with the Verein Entomologia Ziirich
which at their meeting held on 24th April 1935 had adopted a
resolution in which the Society had drawn attention to a case

where, in the judgment of the Society, a particular author had

violated the Code of Ethics in this way. At the same time
Verein Entomologia Ziirich had formulated certain proposals for

action to be taken by the International Commission on Zoological

Nomenclature to meet the situation so created. In the same
resolution the Society agreed that the resolutions which they had
adopted in regard to this matter should be transmitted to the
Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft with a request that
that body should forward it to the International Commission.

The proposals of the Verein Entomologia Ztirich were embodied

in an explanatory memorandum which on the following day
(25th April 1935) was signed by Professor Dr. .J. G. Lautner,
President of the Society. This memorandum was duly forwarded
to the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft which, at its

XX OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

annual meeting held on 19th May 1935, decided to support the
action proposed by the Verein Entomologia Ztirich and to forward
the resolutions adopted by that body to the International Com-
mission on its own behalf as well as on that of the Verein En-
tomologia Ziirich. With his letter to the Commission of 4th
June 1935 Professor Handschin enclosed a copy of the document
prepared by the Verein Entomologia Zurich duly endorsed by
himself on behalf of the Schweizerische entomologische Gesellschaft.

2. Copies of the documents referred to above were transmitted
by Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, to each Member
of the Commission in July 1935. Dr. Stiles suggested that this
question should be discussed by the Commission at their meeting
due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year.

3. This question was considered by the Commission at their
meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 24). In the dis-
cussion which ensued it was clear that no member of the Com-
mission had any sympathy for persons who disregarded the Code
of Ethics. It was generally felt, however, that the International
Commission was not in a position to hold inquiries into alleged
breaches of the Code even if they possessed (which they did not
at present) the power to act in a judicial capacity in such cases.
The Commission accordingly agreed :—

to re-affirm their fullest support of the Resolution adopted on their
recommendation by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in 1913, laying down a Code of Ethics to be
observed by zoologists before publishing substitutes for generic or
specific names that are unavailable under Articles 34 and 36 of the Code,
in those cases where the author of the name to be so replaced is still
alive; but at the same time to record their considered opinion that the
question whether the Code of Ethics had been duly complied with in any
given case was not a matter on which they were authorised to enter.

4. At their meeting held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner
Francis Hemming who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr.
C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with

the duty of preparing the report to be submitted to the Twelfth —

International Congress of Zoology, reported that, in accordance
with the request made by the Commission on the previous day
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a
start with the drafting of the Commission’s report; that he had
made considerable progress in spite of being hampered by the lack

of standard works of reference; and that he did not doubt that |

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I2. XXi

he would be in a position to lay a draft report before the Com-
mission at their next meeting, though in the time available it
would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs
relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached
during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon
at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3(a)(iii)), he was therefore concentrating upon those
matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner
Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found im-
possible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the
time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis
of the records in the Official Record of Proceedings of the Com-
mission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Com-
missioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously
agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the
Same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include
_references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress,
and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having
been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates
present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved,
the statement by Commissioner Hemming and adopted the
proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard to the
selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be
adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with which,
for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in that
report.

5. Ihe question dealt with in the present Declaration was one
of the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time
available, to include a reference in the report submitted by the
Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at
Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt
with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set
out in paragraph 4 above.

6. The present Declaration was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin; Peters;
and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera: Ohshima vice Esaki:
Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

Xxii OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

7. The present Declaration was dissented from by no Com-
missioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The follow-
ing five (5) Commissioners who were neither present at Lisbon nor
represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present
Declaration :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
DECLARATION.

WueEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opimion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the International Commission aS soon as a
_ majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission ; and

WHEREAS it has been decided that Opinions dealing with certain
classes of subject are to be rendered under the title ‘‘ Declaration ”
in lieu of the title ‘‘ Opinion’ and that the rules in the By-Laws
relating to the rendering of Opinions shall apply in like manner
to the rendering of Declarations ; and

WHEREAS the present Declaration neither requires, to be valid,
the suspension of the rules nor involves a reversal of any previous
Declaration or other Opinion rendered by the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Declaration either in person or
through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in
Lisbon in September 1935;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis HemMInG, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by virtue of
holding the said Office of the Secretary to the International
Commission, hereby announce the said Declaration on behalf of
the International Commission, acting for the International Con-
gress of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. DECLARATION I2. XXili

Declaration Number Twelve (Declaration 12) of the said Com-
_ mission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Declaration.

Done in London, this twentieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

XXivV INTERNATIONAL’ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, S.W.7.) ;

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—
(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the Commission
for deliberation and decision ;
(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with,
zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above : and
(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic
theory and practice.
Parts 1-3 of Volume 1 have so far been published.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Parts 1-12 of Volume 1 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-3)
have so far been published. |

Parts 1-25 of Volume 2 (containing Declavations 10-12 and Opinions
134-155) have so far been published.

Additional Parts of both Volumes will be published shortly.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with

any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in

the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. |

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most,
gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission)
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.|
Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made!
payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen-|

elature ’? and crossed ‘“‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.”’.

Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Lid., Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 1-6)

OPINION 134

On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the Generic Names assigned by Freyer to
species described in his Neuere Beitrdge zur

Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858

- LONDON:
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission

British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7

1939
Price eight pence

an ‘

Issued August 28th, 1939

sy
>
ee
o:
"

Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself, owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of
Dr. ©. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the Imtenmarional
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to
the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of
the Commission in the Smithsoman Miscellaneous Collections.
Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above
Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer
obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious
position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available,
to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions Rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

APR 2~ 1943
\,

Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd.,
Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINION 134.

ON THE METHOD TO BE ADOPTED IN INTERPRETING
THE GENERIC NAMES ASSIGNED BY FREYER TO SPECIES
DESCRIBED IN HIS NEUERE BEITRAGE ZUR SCHMET-
TERLINGSKUNDE, 1833-1858.

SUMMARY.—In interpreting the generic names assigned by
Freyer in his Neuere Beitrége zur Schmetterlingskunde to the
species there described, each species is to be regarded as having
been described by Freyer as belonging to the genus cited by him
at the head of the deseription and not to the genus with which
he actually associated the specific name.

} thE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

At the Fifth International Congress of Entomology held in
Paris in July, 1932, Section VIII of the Congress (the Section on
Nomenclature) appointed a special Committee for the duration of
' the Congress to consider questions of nomenclature of special
interest to entomologists. Prior to the close of the Congress this
Committee submitted to Section VIII a series of Draft Resolutions,
one of which read as follows :—

~ Les noms specifiques de Freyer doivent étre regardés comme liés aux
noms des genres énumérés par lui et non pas aux noms des grandes divisions

de Linné; par exemple, il faut citer Hipparchia ertphyle Freyer, non
Papilio eviphyle Freyer.”’

ie bee SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. The foregoing Resolution was unanimously adopted by
Section VIII of the Congress, which agreed to submit it and
certain other Resolutions to the Plenary Session of the Congress,
for transmission to the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature. At the Plenary Session of the Congress, this
Resolution was adopted in the manner proposed, and it was
accordingly thereby referred to the International Committee.

3. This question was carefully considered by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in September, 1935,
at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of the Sixth

4 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

International Congress of Entomology; and the Committee agreed
to submit to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a recommendation supporting the Resolution set
out in paragraph 1 above, and expressing the hope that the
Commission at their next Meeting would agree to render an
Opinion in the sense of the said Resolution.

Ni—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY 1HE inte
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
gave consideration to this question later in September, 1935, at
their Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth
International Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the Inter-
national Commission unanimously adopted the following
Resolution which was incorporated in their Report to the Inter-
national Zoological Congress as paragraph 16 thereof :—

c6é

16. On the method to be adopted in interpreting the generic names assigned
by Freyer to species described in his Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlings-
kunde, 1833—1858.—In interpreting the generic names assigned by Freyer
in his Neueve Beitvage zuyv Schmetterlingskunde to the species there described,
each species is to be regarded as having been described by Freyer as
belonging to the genus cited by him at the head of each description and not
to the genus with which he actually associated the specific name. For
example, Freyer described, under the genus Hipparchia Fabricius, a
Species to which he gave the specific name eviphyle, and which he proceeded
to name Papilio eriphyle Freyer. Freyer is to be deemed to have described
this species under the name Hipparchia eriphyle and not under the name
Papilio eviphyle.”’

5. The Report of the International Commission containing the
foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of
the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th
September, 1935; and by the Section on Nomenclature at their
Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was
accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress
by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum
of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September,
1935, the last day of the Congress.

6. In view of the possibility that it might be held that the
Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report
quoted in paragraph 4 above might require, im order to be valid,
the Suspension of the Rules, the intention of the Commission
to render an Opinion in the said terms was duly advertised in
1936 in two or more of the zoological journals named in the
Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Zoological
Congress held at Monaco in March, 1913, by “wihielheilie

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 134. 5

International Congress conferred upon the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature Plenary Power to
suspend the Rules as applied to any given case where in the opinion
of the Commission the strict application of the Rules would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity.

7. In the period which has elapsed since the announcement in
the said zoological journals of the proposed Suspension of the
Rules in the manner indicated, no communication of any kind
has been addressed to the International Commission objecting
to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed.

8. The Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s
Report quoted in paragraph 4 above was concurred in by the
twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon
Meeting of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
eters» and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Oshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice
Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

g. Ihe Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no
Commissioner or Alternate.

10. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither
present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission
nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the
above Opinion :—Bolivar ve Eteltaim-) Chapman.) antnaimn,
Silvestri; and Stiles.

i UTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

_ WHEREAS the Sixth International Zoological Congress at its
Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Zoological Congress,
Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given
case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict
application of the said Rules would clearly result in greater
confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the
Said case should be given in two or more of five journals named
in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the

6 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Commission was unanimously in favour of the proposed Suspension
of the Rules; and

WHEREAS it might be held that the present Opinion might
require, in order to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules; and

WHEREAS, in order to provide for the said contingency, not
less than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules
as applied to the present case has been given in two or more of the
journals referred to in the said Resolution adopted by the Sixth
International Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March,
1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International
Commission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Thirty-Four (Opinion 134) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

DoneE in London, this thirtieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred |

and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Gp A f a AY sy sie
a | q '
;
:
P
i
Y :
Q
!
;
\¢
ve
A :
i
2
4
o
:
P
‘
:
}
,
4

® i b 43
aa ee
: ‘ :
= 7 ie Co ;
AL af =
ne : as
vt =. ry
id? a - 3 =
/ ir es
} ® a = ?. 4
< { ;
i
ry « 4
; i :
i 7
r.
Z a
' g
3 <
«
ri
E J —s
* * »
—_ z
, x 2
~ “ c
= 4 J
1
=
: é _

2
‘

ee See

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 7—12)

OPINION 135

The suppression of the so-called “Erlangen List ”

of 1801

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International, Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission

| British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7
| 1939
Price eight pence

| (All rights reserved)
Issued August 28th, 1939

Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions I-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself, owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of
Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to
the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of
the Commission in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections.
Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above
Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer
obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious
position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available,
to reprint Opinions r to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions Rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

C
APR 2~ 1943

Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd.,
Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINION 135.

THE SUPPRESSION OF THE SO-CALLED “ ERLANGEN
LIST ’’ OF 1801.

SUMMARY.—The so-called “ Erlangen List ’’ of 1801 is to be
treated as though it had never been published.

ih SAGE MEN DP Oh RE CASE:

At the Fifth International Congress of Entomology held in
Paris in July, 1932, Section VIII of the Congress (the Section on
Nomenclature) appointed a special Committee for the duration
of the Congress to consider questions of nomenclature of special
interest to entomologists. Prior to the close of the Congress this
Committee submitted to Section VIII a series of Draft Resolutions,
one of which read as follows :—

“Le Congrés propose a la Commission pour la Nomenclature zoologique
de supprimer les noms génériques de la soi-disant Liste d’Erlangen de
1801, parce que l’acceptation de ces noms bouleverserait la nomenclature
des Hyménopteéres.”’

eal SUBSEOUERENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. The foregoing Resolution was unanimously adopted by Sec-
tion VIII of the Congress, which agreed to submit it and certain
other Resolutions to the Plenary Session of the Congress, for
transmission to the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature. At the Plenary Session of the Congress, this
Resolution was adopted in the manner proposed, and it was
accordingly thereby referred to the International Committee.

3. This question was carefully considered by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in September, 1935,
at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology ; and the Committee agreed
to submit to the International Commission on Zoological No-
menclature a recommendation supporting the Resolution set out
in paragraph r above, and expressing the hope that the Commis-
sion at their next Meeting would agree to render an Opinion in
the sense of the said Resolution.

IO OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

III—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

4. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
gave consideration to this question later in September, 1935, at
their Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth
International Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the Inter-
national Commission unanimously adopted the following Reso-
lution which was incorporated in their Report to the International
Zoological Congress as paragraph 17 thereof :—

“17. Suppression of the so-called‘ Eviangen List’ of 1801.—The International
Commission have had under consideration the anonymous pamphlet
dealing with the generic classification of the Hymenoptera, which was
published in 1801 under the title Nachricht von Einen neuen entomolischen
(sic) Werke des Hyn. Prof. JURINE im Geneve, and which is commonly
known as the ‘ Erlangen List’. The International Commission are con-
vinced that the adoption of the names contained in this pamphlet in ac-
cordance with the strict application of the rules would clearly result in
greater confusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the
plenary powers conferred upon them at the Monaco session of the Inter-
national Zoological Congress, the International Commission hereby declare
that the so-called ‘ Erlangen List’ is to be treated as though it had never
been published. Consequential on the above, it should be understood that
where subsequently any author published a genus having the same name
as one of the genera proposed in the ‘ Erlangen List’, the later published
name is not to be regarded as a homonym by reason of the earlier
publication of that name in the ‘ Erlangen List ’.”’

5. The Report of the International Commission containing the
foregoing paragraph was adopted unanimously at the Meeting
of the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th
September, 1935; and by the Section on Nomenclature at the
Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was
accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress
by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum
of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st Septem-
ber, 1935, the last day of the Congress.

6. In view of the possibility that it might be held that the
Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s Report
quoted in paragraph 4 above might require, in order to be valid,
the Suspension of the Rules, the intention of the Commission to
render an Opinion in the said terms was duly advertised in 1936
in two or more of the zoological journals named in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Zoological Congress held at
Monaco in March, 1913, by which the International Congress
conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 135. II

to any given case where in the opinion of the Commission the
strict application of the Rules would clearly result in greater
confusion than uniformity.

Wommissioners:—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Pevers, and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Oshima wice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

g. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no
Commissioner or Alternate.

10. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither
present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission
nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the
above Opinion :—Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham;
Silvestri; and Stiles.

oO UMORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Sixth International Zoological Congress at its
Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Zoological Congress,
Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given
case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict
application of the said Rules would clearly result in greater
confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the
said case should be given in two or more of five journals named
in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commis-

sion was unanimously in favour of the proposed peop ucien of
the Rules; and

L2 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

WHEREAS it might be held that the present Opinion might
require, in order to be valid, the Suspension of the Rules; and

WHEREAS, in order to provide for the said contingency, not less
than one year’s notice of the possible Suspension of the Rules as
applied to the present case has been given in two or more of the
journals referred to in the said Resolution adopted by the Sixth
International Congress at its Meeting held in Monaco in March,
1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commis-
sion on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every
the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Thirty-Five (Opinion 135) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this thirtieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 13—20)

OPINION 136

Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considérations
générales sur lordre naturel des animaux
composant les classes des Crustacés, des
Arachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau
méthodique de leurs genres disposés en familles,

Paris, 1810

LONDON: » |
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7

1939
Price one shiliing

sued August 28th, 1939

NotE :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself, owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of
Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to
the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of
the Commission in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections.
Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above
Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer
obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious
position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available,
to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opimions Rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

A
enh : Las
a
APR 2- 1943

MUTiona, wuse™

Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd.,
Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINION 136.

OPINION SUPPLEMENTARY TO OPINION 11 ON THE
INTERPRETATION OF LATREILLE’S CONSIDERATIONS
GENERALES SUR L’ORDRE NATUREL DES ANIMAUX
COMPOSANT LES CLASSES DES CRUSTACES,. DES
ARACHNIDES ET DES INSECTES AVEC UN TABLEAU
METHODIQUE DE LEURS GENRES DISPOSES EN
FAMILLES, PARIS, 1810.

SUMMARY.—Opinion 11 of the International Commission,
Which directs that the “table des genres avec )’indication de
Vespéce qui leur sert de type’’, which is attached to Latreille’s
Considerations genérales of 1810, should be accepted as con-
stituting a designation, under Article 30 of the Code, of the types
of the genera in question, applies only to those genera there cited
by Latreille in which he placed one only of the species included
in the genus by the original author thereof.

i=in ohAnhbMPNG OF THE. CASE.

This question was first brought forward by Commissioner
Francis Hemming who, in 1935, submitted the following statement
to the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature
at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology :—

“I found considerable difficulty in interpreting Opinion 11 rendered
by the International Commission when I came to consider Latreille’s
Considévations génévales in the course of preparing the first volume of
my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies (published in July, 1934).
In Part I of that volume I pointed out (on page 14) that without further
explanation it was not possible strictly to apply the provision in that
Opinion that the ‘table des genres avec l’indication de l’espéce qui leur
sert de Type’ appended by Latreille at the end of his Considérations générales
sur Vordve naturel des animaux composant les classes des Crustacés, des
Avachnides et des Insectes avec un tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés
en familles, Paris 1810, are to be accepted as ‘designation of types
of the genera in question,’ Of the seventeen butterfly genera given by
Latreille on page 440 of his work a single species is given for six genera,
two or more species are given for eight genera, while a special form of
notation (referred to below) was employed by Latreille for the three
remaining genera. Opinion 11 of the International Commission is clearly
applicable to the seven genera for which a single species only is given,
except in such cases as the type may have already been fixed by some
previous author (e.g. Thais Fabricius, 1807, where the type was fixed
‘from the date of first publication through the action of Fabricius in placing

a5)

16 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

a single species only in the said genus). The three genera for which
Latreille adopted the special notation referred to above are Cethosia
Fabricius, 1807, Arvgynnis Fabricius, 1807, and Papilio Linnaeus, 1758.
In these cases Latreille, after indicating the type species, added a second
species preceded by the word ‘ ejusd.’ by which he appears to have intended
to indicate that the said second species also belonged to the genus but was
not the type.

‘The eight genera for which Latreille specified no one species as type
but to which he allotted two or more species are in an entirely different
position. Opinion 11 of the Commission (published in July, 1910) is not
applicable to such names and, indeed, in relation to them has no meaning,
since obviously it is impossible for both of two (often only distantly related)
species to be the type of any given genus.

“TI feel sure that the present ambiguity in the wording of Opinion 11
is the result of inadvertence only, but clearly the position must be clarified.
I consider that this could best be done by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature rendering an Opinion supplementary to
Opinion 11 directing that the provisions of Opinion 11 apply only to those
genera there cited by Latreille in which he placed one only of the species
included in the genus by the original author thereof. An Opinion so
worded would have the great advantage that it would provide a clear-cut
decision in every type of case which could arise in the interpretation of
Latreille’s Table des genres, namely :—

““(i) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table one species
only, and that species is one of the species included in the said
genus by the original author thereof.

‘““Tn the above case the species placed in the genus by Latreille
would, under the Opinion proposed, become the type of the
said genus.

‘““ (ii) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table (a) one only
of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof,
together with (b) one or more species not included in the said
genus by the original author thereof.

‘““In the above case the species which was included in the genus
by the original author thereof and which alone of those species was
placed in the said genus by Latreille in his Table would, under
the Opinion proposed, become the type of the said genus.

“* (iii) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table two or more
of the species included in the said genus by the original author
thereof, either accompanied or not by one or more species not
placed in the said genus by the original author thereof.

‘““In the above case no type determination would, under the
Opinion proposed, have been made by Latreille in his Table,
since in that Table he included more than one of the species
included in the genus by the original author thereof.

‘““(iv) Cases where Latreille placed in a genus in his Table none of the
species included in the said genus by the original author thereof,
the only species (either one or more in number) placed in the
said genus by Latreille being species not included in the said
genus by the original author thereof.

‘““In the above case no type determination would, under the
Opinion proposed, have been made by Latreille in his Table, since
none of the species included in the genus by the original author
thereof was included also by Latreille in the said genus.

‘Finally it is of course to be understood that the provisions of the
proposed Opinion would apply only to those genera in respect of which no
valid type determination had been effected prior to the publication of
Latreille’s Considévations générales of 1810.”

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 136. I7

I.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature at their Madrid Meeting endorsed the views which
Commissioner Hemming had laid before them on the subject,
and agreed to submit to the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature a recommendation supporting the proposals
set out in the statement prepared by Commissioner Hemming set
out in paragraph I above, and expressing the hope that the
Commission at their next Meeting would agree to render an
Opinion in the sense indicated above.

MiiL—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION.

3. The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
gave consideration to this question later in September, 1935, at
their Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth
International Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the Inter-
national Commission approved the proposal submitted and
unanimously adopted the following Resolution which was incor-
porated in their Report to the International Zoological Congress
as paragraph 18 thereof :—

18. Supplementary opinion on the interpretation of Latreille’s ‘ Con-
sidévations Générales’ of 1810.—Opinion 11 of the International Com-
mission, which directs that the ‘table des genres avec l’indication de
lespéce qui leur sert de Type’, which is attached to Latreille’s Considévations
générales of 1810, should be accepted as constituting a designation, under
Article 30 of the Code, of the types of the genera in question, applies
only to those genera there cited by Latreille in which he placed one only
of the species included in the genus by the original author thereof.”

4. The Report of the International Commission containing the
foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of
the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th Sep-
tember, 1935; and by the Section on Nomenclature at their
Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report
was accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Con-
gress by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium
Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday,
2Ist September, 1935, the last day of the Congress.

5. Ihe Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s
Report quoted in paragraph 3 above was concurred in by the
twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon
Meeting of the International Commission, namely :—

18 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Commissioners :—Calman ; Hemming Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; cand Stejneger.

Oshima vice Esaki;

Bradley, vice Stones) Beier svice Handlirsch. Arndt vice

Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

6. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no
Commissioner or Alternate.

7. Subsequent to the Lisbon Meeting the following four (4)
Commissioners who were neither present at that Meeting nor were
represented thereat by Alternates indicated that they desired
their names to be added to the list of Commissioners supporting
the Opinion adopted at that Meeting :—Chapman; Fantham;
Silvestri; and Stiles. Commissioner Bolivar y Pieltain was
neither present at the Lisbon Meeting nor represented thereat by
an Alternate; nor did he subsequently address any communication
to the Secretary to the Commission in regard to this subject.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE
PRESENT OPINION:

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as
a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion should require the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been rendered
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS it might be held that the proviso set forth above
might apply to the present Opinion since the said Opinion is |
supplementary to an Opinion (Opinion 11) already rendered by
then Commission andi) |

WHEREAS sixteen (16) Members of the Commission have signified |
their concurrence in the present Opinion, twelve (12) either in
person or through Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission |
held in Lisbon in September, 1935, and four (4) by subsequent _
adherence to the Resolution agoDied in this matter at the said
Meeting ;

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 136. I9

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the
said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Thirty-Six (136) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this thirtieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. SUSE)

OPINION 137

On the relative precedence to be accorded to

certain generic names published in 1807 by

Fabricius and Hiibner respectively for identical
genera in the Lepidoptera Rhopalocera

LONDON: ne

Printed by Order of the International Commission on

out
i

Zoological Nomenclature _

Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission

British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London. S.W.7
1939

Price one shilling and sixpence

eeepc LE OS Sea Sa at eR
a ee Se
ued 30th October, 1942

Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of
Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to theminrenmamenal
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to
the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of
the Commission in the Smithsoman Muscellaneous Collections.
Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above
Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore no longer
obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious
position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available,
to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opimions Rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

APR 2- 1943

Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd.,
Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINION 137.

ON THE RELATIVE PRECEDENCE TO BE ACCORDED TO
CERTAIN GENERIC NAMES PUBLISHED IN 1807 BY FABRI-
CIUS AND HUBNER RESPECTIVELY FOR IDENTICAL GENERA
IN THE LEPIDOPTERA RHOPALOCERA.

SUMMARY.—Unless and until further evidence is forthcoming
regarding the precise dates in 1807 on which were published
(a) Fabricius’s paper on generic names of Lepidoptera in the
sixth volume of Illiger’s Magazin fur Insektenkunde and (b) certain
plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, the
names proposed by Fabricius shall have precedence over those
proposed by Hiibner. In the event of evidence later being found
to show that Hiibner’s plates were published before Fabricius’s
paper, three generic names (as shown in the body of the present
Opinion) proposed by Hiibner on the said plates are, under Suspen-
sion of the Rules, to be suppressed in favour of the names (also
given in the body of the present Opinion) proposed by Fabricius for
the same genera.

Prt SPATEMENT OF THE Cask.

This question was first brought forward by Commissioner
Francis Hemming who, in 1935, submitted the following state-
ment to the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature at their Meeting held in Madrid during the Meeting of
the Sixth International Congress of Entomology :—

“In the course of preparing volume 1 of my Generic Names of the
Holarctic Butterflies I encountered a difficulty in dealing with certain
generic names proposed for identical genera by Fabricius in the sixth
volume of Illiger’s Magazin fiir Insektenkunde and by Hiibner on certain
plates of his Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge issued in 1807. ‘There are
three pairs of generic names concerned, namely :—

“ (a) Morpho Fabricius and Potamis Hiibner.

“The type of Morpho Fabricius is Papilio achilles Linnaeus,
1758, that species having been so specified by Westwood in 1851
(in Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2) : 341). The type of Potamis
Hubner is Potamis leonte Hubner, [1807], which is a synonym of
Papilio achilles Linnaeus (see Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol.
Buit. 1:50). The genera Morpho Fabricius and Potamis Hiibner
are thus identical with one another, the type species being the
same in each case.

24 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

“This case arises through the decision of the International Com-
mission embodied in Opinion 97 that Hiibner’s Tentamen is invalid.
If that work had been valid, the name Potamis would have ranked
from the Tentamen and its type would have been Papilio iis
Linnaeus, 1758, with the result that it would have replaced the
very well-known name Apatura Fabricius, 1807.

“ (b) Helicopis Fabricius and Rusticus Hiibner.

“The type of Helicopis Fabricius is Papilio cupido Linnaeus,
1758, that species having been so specified by Scudder in 1875
(Proc. amey. Acad. Aris Sci., Boston 10: 186). The type of
Rusticus Hiibner is Papilio gnidus Fabricius, 1787 (see Hemming,
1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 98), a species which is congeneric
with Papilio cupido Linnaeus, the type of Helicopis Fabricius.

“This case arises through the decision of the International
Commission, embodied in Opinion 97, that Hibner’s Tentamen is
invalid. If that work had been valid, the name Rusticus would
have ranked from the Tentamen and its type would have been
Papilio arvgus Linnaeus (1.e. a species of LyCAENIDAE and not a
species of RIODINIDAE to which Papilio gnidus Fabricius belongs).
The name Rusticus Hiibner would in that event have been a
synonym of Plebejzus Kluk, 1802.

“(c) Pontia Fabricius and Mancipium Hibner.

“ The type of Pontia Fabricius is Papilio daplidice Linnaeus,
1758, that species having been so specified by Curtis in 1824 (Brit.
Entom. 1, pl. 48). The type of Mancipium Hibner is Papilio
helica Linnaeus, 1767 (= Papilio helice Linnaeus, 1764) (see
Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 130), a species which is
congeneric with Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, the type of Pontia
Fabricius.

‘““ This case arises through the decision of the International Com-
mission, embodied in Opinion 97, that Hiibner’s Tentamen is invalid.
If that work had been valid, the name Mancipium would have
ranked from the Tentamen and its type would have been Papilio
brassicae Linnaeus. In that event Mancipium Huibner would
therefore have been a synonym of Pievis Schrank, 1801.

_ “ There is no evidence to show which of the sets of three names were the
first to be published, whether the three names published by Hiibner or the
three names published by Fabricius. What is, however, self-evident is the
need for an authoritative declaration as to which set of names is to be
treated as having priority over the other.

‘’ If preference were to be given to the three names proposed by Hiibner,
the name Potamis Hiibner would replace the very well-known name
Morpho Fabricius which provides the name for the Family MoRPHIDAE;
the name fusticus Hiibner (hitherto always employed for a genus of
LYCAENIDAE) would be transferred to the RiopINIDAE and would replace
the very well-known name Helicopis Fabricius; and the name Mancipium
Hiibner would replace the very well-known name Pontia Fabricius, thus
causing a very confusing transfer of names in the Family PIERIDAE. If,
on the other hand, preference were to be given to the three names proposed
by Fabricius, the very well-known generic names Morpho Fabricius,
Helicopis Fabricius, and Pontia Fabricius would all be retained in their
accustomed sense, while the three Hiibnerian names would all disappear as
synonyms, a result which would prevent their being used in a sense quite
different from that in which (owing to the Tentamen) they have hitherto
been used by such authors as have employed them at all.

. To sum up, the Fabrician names are well known and in common use,
while those proposed by Hiibner are not now in use, and, when used in the
past, have been employed in a different sense from that which, in view of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 137. 25

Opinion 97, would now be necessary. In these circumstances, the sub-
stitution of the three Hiibnerian names for the three Fabrician names, if,
under the strict application of the Rules, such a course could be shown to
be called for by reason of the prior publication of the Hiibnerian names,
would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.

“In order to secure a binding ruling on this question, my colleague Mr.
N. D. Riley and I, in accordance with our already announced intention
(Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 13), now ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to issue an Opinion declaring that
the paper in the sixth volume of Illiger’s Magazin in which the names pro-
posed by Fabricius were published is to be given precedence over the
plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge published in 1807.
The effect of the adoption by the International Commission of an Opinion
in the foregoing sense would afford full protection to the names Morpho
Fabricius, Helicopis Fabricius, and Pontia Fabricius. A _ conditional
suspension of the rules would be involved in order to provide against the
contingency (which, though highly unlikely, is nevertheless conceivable)
that evidence might some day be forthcoming to show that some or all of
the particular plates of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge now
under consideration were published before the appearance of the paper
in volume 6 of Illiger’s Magazin containing the new names proposed by
Fabricius.”

ae OU bOHOURNT BIStORY OF THE CASE.

2. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature at their Madrid Meeting endorsed the views which Com-
missioner Hemming had laid before them on the subject, and
agreed to submit to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a recommendation supporting the proposals set out
in the statement prepared by Commissioner Hemming quoted in
paragraph I above, and expressing the hope that the Commission
at their next Meeting would agree to render an Opinion in the
sense indicated above,

oe CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

19. On the relative precedence to be accorded to certain generic names in
the Lepidoptera published in 1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner vespectively.—
Unless and until further evidence is forthcoming regarding the precise dates
in 1807 on which were published (a) FaBricius’s paper on generic names in

26 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the sixth volume of ILLIGER’s Magazin fiiy Insektenkunde and (b) certain
plates of HUBNER’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, the names pro-
posed by Fapricius shall have precedence over those proposed by HUBNER.
The Commission are further of the Opinion that, if evidence were found
to show that HUBNER’s plates were published before FABRICIUS’s paper,
the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity. Acting, therefore, in virtue of the Plenary Power
conferred upon them at the Monaco Meeting of the International Zoological
Congress, the International Commission hereby declare that in that event
the generic names Potamis Hibner, Rusticus Hubner, and Mancipium
Hiibner are to be suppressed in favour of Morpho Fabricius, Helicopis
Fabricius, and Pontia Fabricius respectively.”

4. The Report of the International Commission containing the
foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of
the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th Septem-
ber, 1935, and by the Section on Nomenclature at their Meeting
held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was accord-
ingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress by
which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of
the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September,

1935, the last day of the Congress.

5. In view of the fact that the concluding portion of the
Opinion quoted in paragraph 4 above requires, to be valid, the
Suspension of the Rules, the intention of the Commission to
render an Opinion in the said terms was duly advertised in 1936
in two or more of the zoological journals named in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Zoological Congress held at
Monaco in March, 1913, by which the International Congress
conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to
any given case where in the opinion of the Commission the strict
application of the Rules would clearly result in greater confusion
than uniformity. :

6. In the period which has elapsed since the announcement in
the said zoological journals of the proposed Suspension of the
Rules in the manner indicated, no communication of any kind
has been addressed to the International Commission objecting to
the issue of an Opinion giving priority to the names introduced
by Fabricius over those introduced by Hiibner, though one group
of lepidopterists interested in Hiibner’s Tentamen submitted
certain observations in regard to the application to be given to
the Hiibnerian names in question.

7. The Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s _

Report quoted in paragraph 3 above was concurred in by the

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 137. 27

twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon
* Meeting of the International Commission, namely :—

Sommiscsioners Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Pitermates:—cdo Amiral vice Cabrera; Oshima wece Esaki:
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen wice Apstein.

8. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no
Commissioner or Alternate.

g. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither
present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission
nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the above
Opinion :—Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri;
and Stiles.

ce SOinORIDY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Zoological Congress at its
Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Zoological Congress,
Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said
Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was
unanimously in favour of the proposed Suspension of the Rules;
and

WHEREAS the Suspension of the Rules is required in certain
circumstances to give valid force to certain of the provisions of
the present Opinion; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible
Suspension of the Rules as applied to the present case has been
given in two or more of the journals referred to in the said Resolu-
tion adopted by the Ninth International Zoological Congress at
its Meeting held in Monaco in March, 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

28 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FrRANcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com- »
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion One Hundred
and Thirty-Seven (Opinion 137) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twelfth day of August, Nineteen Hundred
and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING ah

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 29—34)

OPINION 138

On the Method by which the Amendment to
Article 25 of the International Code adopted at
the Budapest Meeting of the International
Zoological Congress, relating to the Replace-
ment of Invalid Names, should be Interpreted

a as sy Se

# ait .
eg” \

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature

Sold at the Secretariat of the Commission

British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W.7
1939

Price one shilling and sixpence
(All rights reserved)

SS aE Gaee SSR e ey SOE ETS ee
sued 30th October, 1942

Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of
Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the@intermarenal
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to
the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions of
the Commission in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections.
Unfortunately, all except a few of the most recent of the above
Opinions are now out of print, and are therefore not obtainable
by working zoologists. In order to remedy the serious position
so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available, to
reprint Opinions I to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions Rendered by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

\
s G
APR 2- 1943

“4Tiona, wustd™

Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Ltd.,
Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINION 138.

ON THE METHOD BY WHICH THE AMENDMENT TO
ARTICLE 25 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE ADOPTED AT

THE BUDAPEST MEETING OF THE INTERNATIONAL ZOO-

LOGICAL CONGRESS, RELATING TO THE REPLACEMENT
OF INVALID NAMES, SHOULD BE INTERPRETED.

SUMMARY.—In order to comply with Article 25 of the Inter-
national Code as amended at the Meeting of the International
Zoological Congress held in Budapest in 1927, it is necessary for an

author publishing a new name in substitution for an invalid name,

after giving the name to be replaced and its author, to cite also the
year in which that name was published and to indicate the title of
- the work or journal in which the name fo be replaced was first
published, and, in all cases where the pages of the work concerned
are numbered, to cite the number of the page on which the name to
be replaced was printed.

T—TRE SEATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This question was first raised by Dr. C. B. Ticehurst, Editor of
the /bis, in the following letter dated 5th August, 1935 :—
‘I should like to bring the following case before the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

‘In the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, vol. 55 : 24, 1934,
Mr. Mathews proposes (inter alia) :—

‘ Tvochalopteron touchena for T. yunnanensis La Touche, 1922, not
Rippon, 1906.’

“ According to the amended Rule 25, a definite bibliographical reference
must be given. The question for the Commission to decide is whether
‘La Touche, 1922 ’ can be said to be a‘ definite bibliographical reference ’.”’

ithe CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

2. [he International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
gave consideration to this question in September, 1935, at their
_ Meeting held in Lisbon during the Meeting of the Twelfth Inter-
national Zoological Congress. At this Meeting the International

32 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Commission unanimously adopted the following Resolution which
was incorporated in their Report to the International Zoological

Congress as paragraph 20 thereof :—

“20. On the method by which the amendment to Article 25 of the Inter-
national Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological
Congress, velating to the veplacement of invalid names, should be interpreted.—
The International Commission have had under consideration the question
of the interpretation of the amendment to Article 25 of the International
Code adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the International Zoological
Congress, which became operative on the 1st January 1931, and which
lays it down that, when for any reason it is necessary to replace an existing
name, either because it is a synonym or a homonym, the author proposing
the new name must give ‘a definite bibliographic reference’ to the name
to be replaced. An author giving such a new name would not comply
with the above amendment to Article 25, if, after giving the name to be
replaced, he were only to add such an expression as ‘La Touche, 1922’.
In order to comply with the Article as amended at Budapest, it is necessary
for the author proposing the new name, after giving the name to be replaced
and its author, to cite also the year in which that name was published and
to indicate the title of the work or journal in which the name to be replaced
was first published, and, in all cases where the pages of the work concerned
‘are numbered, to cite the number of the page on which the name to be
replaced was printed.”

3. The Report of the International Commission containing the
foregoing paragraph was unanimously adopted at the Meeting of
the Commission held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th
September, 1935, and by the Section on Nomenclature at their
Meeting held on the afternoon of the same day. The Report was
accordingly submitted to the International Zoological Congress
by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum
of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September,
1935, the last day of the Congress. ; 7
4. The Opinion as set out in the extract from the Commission’s
Report quoted in paragraph 2 above was concurred in by the
twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon
Meeting of the International Commission, namely :—
Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amiral vice Cabrera; Oshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

5. The Opinion referred to above was dissented from by no
Commissioner or Alternate.

6. Subsequent to the Lisbon Meeting, the following four (4)
Commissioners who were neither present at that Meeting nor
were represented thereat by Alternates indicated that they
desired their names to be added to the list of Commissioners

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 136. BS

supporting the Opinion adopted at that Meeting :—Chapman ;
Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles. In addition, the following four
(4) Commissioners who were not present in person at the Lisbon
Meeting of the Commission but were represented thereat by
Alternates similarly indicated that they desired their names to
be added to the list of Commissioners supporting the Opinion
adopted at that Meeting :—Cabrera; Esaki; Richter; and
Stone. Commissioner Bolivar y Pieltain was neither present at
the Lisbon Meeting nor represented thereat by an Alternate;
nor did he subsequently address any communication to the
Secretary to the Commission in regard to this subject.

elil—THE DATE AS FROM WHICH THE PROVISIONS OF
ieee k SENT OPINION ARE OPERATIVE.

faikiewamendment to Article 25 of the International Code
containing the phrase “ definite bibliographic reference’’, the
meaning of which is defined in the present Opinion, was adopted
by the International Zoological Congress at its Meeting held in
Budapest in 1927. In order, however, to give zoologists ample
warning of the change in the Code effected by the said amendment,
the International Zoological Congress expressly laid it down that
the said amendment was not to become operative until after the
31st December, 1930, 7.e. that its provisions were to apply only
to names published on or after the 1st January, 1931. Since the
present Opinion does no more than clear up an ambiguity in the
text of an amendment to the International Code, which became
operative as from the Ist January, 1931 (inclusive), the explana-
tion given in the present Opinion applies automatically as from
the same date. The criteria laid down in the present Opinion
apply, therefore, to every name published on or after the Ist
January, 1931.

mye AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving |
the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as
a majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion

34 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion should require the concurrence
of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been rendered
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the
Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former
Opinion rendered by the Commission; and

WHEREAS sixteen (16) Members of the Commission have
signified their concurrence in the present Opinion, twelve (12)
either in person or through Alternates at the Meetme vor smn
Commission held in Lisbon in September, 1935, and four (4) by
subsequent adherence to the Resolution adopted in this matter
at the said Meeting :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the
said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Zoological Congress, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Thirty-Fight (Opinion 138) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fourteenth day of August, Nineteen
Hundred and Thirty-Nine, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on |
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 35-46)

OPINION 139

The names Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803] and
Astata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymenoptera
added to the Official List of Generic Names

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1943

Price two shillings and sixpence

sued 30th January, 1943 ©

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
_ Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.5.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946
Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).
Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).
Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).
(vacant).f

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

MATiOnAL wus

OPINION 139.

THE NAMES CEPHUS LATREILLE, [1802-1803], AND
ASTATA LATREILLE, 1796, IN THE HYMENOPTERA ADDED
TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES.

SUMMARY.—The suppression of the Erlangen List (Opinion
135) invalidates the name Astatus Jurine, 1801 (type: Sireax
pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1758) and in consequence the name Cephus
Latreille, [1802—1803],* of which the same species is the type,
becomes available nomenclatorially. The name Cephus Latreille,
with type as indicated, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic
Names, together with Astata Latreille, 1796 (type: Tiphia
abdominalis Panzer, |1798]).

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The problem presented by the names CepfAus Latreille, [1802-
1803] and Astatus Jurine, 1801, arose from the action of Morice
and Durrant (1915, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1914: 339-436) in
publishing a facsimile of the so-called Erlangen List and drawing
attention to the large number of names for which fresh type
designations were required if (as those authors considered should
be the case) those names were to be treated as having been validly
published for the first time in that work.

2. No. 9 of the 48 genera enumerated in the Erlangen List was
A status Jurine. Two species were cited for this genus as follows :—
“ Sivex pygmaeus. Banchus spinipes Panzer (Banchus viridator
Fabric. medit.’’ Morice and Durrant pointed out (zb7d. 1914: 383)
that the above names both apply to a single species, Sivex pygmaeus
Eimnaeus, 1767 (Sysi. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 920) and therefore that

* At the time of the meeting of the International Commission at Lisbon
in 1935, it was believed that the date of publication of volume 3 of Latreille,
mm Sonnini’s Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins., in which the name
Cephus Latreille was first published, was 1802, but Griffin has since shown
(1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1: 157) that, notwithstanding the fact that
this volume is dated “‘ An X’’, it was almost certainly not published until
“ An XI” and therefore that this volume must have been published on
same date in the period 22.1x.1802—21.1ix.1803. For particulars showing

how to convert dates from the French Republican calendar into the
Christian calendar, see Griffin, 1939, ibid. 1: 249.

38 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL |

that species was automatically the type of Astatus Jurine, that
genus being in effect monotypical.

3. The conclusions reached by Morice and Durrant were dis-
cussed by Professor James Chester Bradley in a paper published
in 1919 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 56-57). The following is
an extract from that paper of the passage dealing with the names
Astatus Jurine and Astata Latreille, 1796 :—

ASTATA Latr., 1796 = [Astatus Latr., 1796, evvatum] = [Dimorpha
ir. Loon:

TYPE: [Tiphia abdominalis Panz.|] = [Sphex] boops Schrank = Astata
boops (Schrank) Spinola. The genus was described without species, and
abdominalis was the first subsequently included.

The genus Astata of Latreille is valid and dates from 1796. Latreille
printed the name Astatus (1796: 114), but in the same work (1796 : xill)
states: ‘‘ Page 114, au lieu d’Astatus lisez Astata.” We can therefore
hardly hold that he has preoccupied Astatus Jurine, 1801, a group of saw-
flies. Nor can the latter be considered as establishing species for A stata
Latr., since the species therein contained do not come under the generic
definition of Astata. :

ASTATUS Jur., May 1801, nec Panzer, July, 1801, Konow, etc. =
Cephus Latr., 1802 = Trachelus Jur., 1807.

TYPE: Sivex pygmaeus L. = Astatus pygmaeus (L.) Jur. = Cephus
pygmaeus (L.) Latr.

The two species originally included in Astatus are identical.

4. The revolutionary changes in the nomenclature of the
Hymenoptera that would be involved in the acceptance of the
Erlangen List led Professor Chester Bradley to consult the leading
systematic workers in all countries on the course of action to be
pursued. This action, which was initiated in 1928, led in due
course to the submission to the International Commission of
petitions relating to this and certain other cases signed by Pro-
fessor Chester Bradley and 59 other Hymenopterists. The text
of the petition relating to the present case reads as follows :—

THE CASE OF CEPHUS VERSUS ASiAa

“In 1834 Norman established the group Cephites for Cephus Latr., 1802,
and allies, and in 1840 Haliday gave the group the family name of CEPHIDAE,
by which name it has been known to most subsequent authors.

“The contained genus Hartigia Schioedte, 1838 (Nat. Tidsskr. 2: 332)
and its synonym Macrocephus Schlechtendal, 1878 (Ent. Nachr. 4: 1 53)>
have been made types of the group called Macrocephides by Konow, 1896,
and HaRTIGIINAE by Enslin, 1914.

“ The type of Cephus Latr., 1802, is Sivex pygmaeus L., a sawfly which
is also the type of Astatus Jurine, May 1801, mec Panzer, July, 1801.
Cephus Latr., 1802, is therefore a synonym of Astatus Jurine, 1801.

“ One would conclude that therefore the family name CEPHIDAE must
be replaced by AsTATIDAE (Art. 5 of the International Code), were it not
for the following facts: Astata Latr., 1796, is an entirely different genus,
having for its type Tiphia abdominals Panzer = Astata boops (Schrank)

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 139. 39

Spinola, an aculeate wasp. The genus was described without species, and
abdominalis was the one first subsequently included. The genus Asitata
of Latreille is valid and dates from 1796 (Opinion 46, Intern. Comm. on
Nomenclature). Latreille printed the name A status (1796 : 114) but in the
same work (1796: xiii) states: ‘Page 114, au lieu d’Astatus lisez Asitata.’
We can therefore hardly hold that he has preoccupied Astatus Jurine, 1801,
a group of sawflies. Nor can the latter be considered as establishing
species for Astata Latr., since the species therein contained do not come
under the generic definition of Astata.

“In 1845 Lepeletier established a group of aculeate wasps, Astatites,
based on Astata Latr., 1796. This was treated by Thomson, 1870, as a
family, ASTATIDAE, by Ashmead, 1899, and Rohwer, 1916, as a subfamily
ASTATINAE and must at present be recognised as a group of at least tribal
value.

“From the foregoing it is evident that there then exists within the
order Hymenoptera a family of sawflies, ordinarily known as CEPHIDAE,
to which the regulations of the International Code require that we now
apply the name ASTATIDAE (with Astatinifor the typical tribe or subfamily
if the group is further divided, as is done by Konow), and a group of
aculeate wasps which also bear the tribal, subfamily or family name
ASTATINI, ASTATINAE or ASTATIDAE according to the rank which they are
given.

“The International Code does not specifically provide against identical
names for pleural groups, higher than genus, but it would seem to be obvious
common sense and in accordance with the entire spirit of the International
Code to refuse to recognise as valid two such group names, and particularly
within a single order. To have a tribe of SPHEGIDAE called ASTATINI,
and a family of sawflies called ASTATIDAE with its tribe ASTATINI, would
be so confusing and so obviously contrary to the spirit of all laws on
nomenclature as to need the specific provision of the Code to prevent its
occurrence.

“Since Astata Latr., 1796 (the wasp) is an older genus than Astatus
Jurine, 1801, (the sawfly) shall we recognise ASTATINI as a tribe of wasps,
based on the type genus Aszata Latreille, 1796, and consider ASTATIDAE
based on Astatus Jurine, 1801, as an invalid name for the group of sawflies
ordinarily known as CEPHIDAE?

“ Trachelus Jurine, 1807 (N. Meth. class. Hymenopt.: 72) is a second
synonym of A status, and is therefore equally unavailable with Cephus as type
of the family to replace Astatus.

“ The Code is silent 1 in regard to the method of determining the type
genera of families. The practice of some authors is to recognise only the
oldest contained genus within the family as type. If this principle were
applied to the sawflies in question, A status (with its synonyms Cephus and
Tvachelus) being unavailable for the reasons above stated, the next oldest
name Cepha Billberg, 1820 (Enum. Ins. Mus. Billberg : 98) (of which the
type is Sivex tabidus Fabricius (1775, Syst. Ent.: 326); see Rohwer:
Ent. News 22: 218) would become type genus of the family and by a rare
circumstance the established name of the group, CEPHIDAE, would again
become available.

“It is the practice of other authors, applying the principle of priority
to designation of the type genera of families, to recognise as the type
genus of any family (or group intermediate between genus and family) the
contained genus that was first established as the basis of a plural name of
higher than generic rank. Of these sawfly genera the first used in this
way was Cephus (Latr., 1802) by Newman in 1834 to form a group he
called Cephites. Ruling it out as a synonym of Astatus, and Astatus as

_ ~ This question has since been settled by the International Commission
In Opinion 141. See pp. 57—65 of the present volume of Opinions.

40 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

unavailable for reasons above stated, we find that the genus next used for
the basis of a group name was Hartigia Schioedte used by Enslin in 1914 as
a basis for the subfamily HARTIGIINAE.*

‘“ Whatever the decision of the Commission in this case may be, it is
apparent that an attempt to proceed under the Code must result in con-
fusion. We therefore request the Commission to :

(1) suspend the rules in the case of the genera of sawflies Cephus
Latreille, 1802, and Astatus Jurine, 1801.

(2) permanently reject Astatus Jurine, 1801, because of its similarity
to Astata Latreille, 1796, and the resulting confusion that would
ensue if subfamily and family names, necessarily of identical form,
were built on each, and because Cephus has been in universal
use since 1802 for the genus of sawflies which under the Code
should be called Astatus,

(3) validate Cephus Latreille, 1802, type Sivex pygmaeus L., and with
it the family name CEPHIDAE, because these names have been in _
universal use, and a change from them would cause needless
confusion,

(4) place Cephus Latreille, 1802, type Sivex pygmaeus on the Official
List of Generic Names, for the genus of sawflies ordinarily known
by that name.

««* This case is discussed, but with a different conclusion by Bradley;
Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 56-58, and the list of references therein given
will also serve for the references made above.” !

5. The following is a copy of the list of signatures attached to
the above petition at the time of its submission to the Interna-
tional Commission :—

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert Dy Altiken! H. Brauns tf

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
i risen J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
fs Ibe, deena R. Fouts P. Ee Baliv,

Tal, lel, JORIS G. Arnold VS. EeiRatte

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein
Galelivle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * aX, (Co IsGuaseny O. Vogt +

E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl f
A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl R. Kruger +

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams +

H. von Ihering t
A. C. W. Wagner

A. von Schulthess
R. B. Benson *

O. Schmiedeknecht +
N. N. Kuznezev-

H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky t+
H. Bischoff W 7 Ve Balout = la, Ja, Ibn
L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

* In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied
the points involved in the particular case.
+ Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not included in his reply.

t Deceased.

1 The passage here referred to by Professor Chester Bradley is quoted

in full in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 139. 41

6. This case was circulated to the members of the International
Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and
the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should
be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held
at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom-
mendations of the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature would be available.

we rib SUBSBOUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

7. This case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration the Com-
mittee decided to frame its recommendations to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, first on the assumption
that the Commission would agree to use its plenary powers to
suppress the “ Erlangen List ’’, in which the name Astatus Jurine,
1801, was published, and second on the assumption that the
Commission would not be able to see its way to deal with the
problem in this radical fashion. If the first of these courses were
taken by the International Commission, there would be no
necessity to suspend the rules in order to secure the desired object
in this case, since Astatus Jurine, 1801, would cease to be available
nomenclatorially immediately the Erlangen List was suppressed
and in consequence the name Cephus Latreille, 1802-1803, would
at once become the oldest available name for the genus of sawflies
in question. The International Committee recommended that in
this event the International Commission should dispose of this
case by placing the name Cephus Latreille, type Sirex pygmaeus
Linnaeus, 1767, on the Official List of Generic Names. If, how-
ever, the International Commission did not suppress the Erlangen
List, it would be necessary for the Commission to act in the way
recommended in the petition submitted in this case. The Inter-
national Committee accordingly recommended that in that event
the International Commission should proceed in that manner.

8. These and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were subsequently
confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at
the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

42 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

III.—_ THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

g. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of 16th
September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13), the
International Commission unanimously agreed to use the plenary
powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International Congress
of Zoology at Monaco in 1913 in order to suppress the Erlangen
List.* When therefore at their meeting held on the afternoon
of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) the
Commission came to consider the present case, they found that
there was no need to make use of the plenary powers in order to
secure the desired object, since, owing to the suppression of the
Erlangen List and, with it, of the name Astatus Jurine, 1801, the
name Cefhus Latreille, [1802-1803]+ had become available
nomenclatorially. It followed also that the name CEPHIDAE
replaced the name ASTATIDAE as the name of the family of
Chalastogastra containing the wheat-stem sawfly, long-accepted
usage thereby being preserved.

10. The Commission accordingly decided to dispose of this case
by rendering an Opinion placing on the Official List of Generic
Names the undermentioned nomenclatorially available generic
names, with types as shown each of which had been duly desig-
nated in accordance with the provisions of the International Code
of Zoological Nomenclature :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(1) Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803],t Sivex pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767,
(im Sonnini’s Buffon) Hist. nat. Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1-(2) : 929 ¢
gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 303 (monotypical)

(2) Astata Latreille, 1796, Pvrécis Tiphia abdominalis Panzer, [1798],
Caract. lisa >) xiii Faun. Ins. germ. (53) tab. 5

(type designated by Latreille,
[1802-1803 |f (2w Sonnini’s Buffon)
Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins.
3: 336; no species were included
by Latreille in 1796; the above
was the sole species included in
[1802-1803] and is therefore the
type.)

* See Opinion 135.

+ The corrected date [1802-1803] is here given and not the date 1802,
which at Lisbon was believed to be the date of this name. See footnote
to the Summary of the present Opinion.

{ This generic name was misspelt Syvev in the version of the Com-
mission’s report published in the Compte Rendu of the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology (1936: 190). On the same occasion the date of this
name was erroneously given as 1758.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 139. 43

ir. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 25 of
the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This Report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

12. The Opinion as set out in paragraph 10 above was concurred
in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the
Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin ;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Imvaleyevece stone, Beier vce Handlirsch: Amdt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

13. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since that Meet-
ing has any Commissioner who was not present on that occasion
indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the
Commission in this matter.

14. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither
present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission
nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the
present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and
Stiles.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

44 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves
a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission,
such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least
fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the
Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former
Opinion rendered by the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or
through Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission held in
Lisbon in September 1935 :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Thirty-Nine (Opinion 139) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twentieth day of December, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Two, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

NOTICES.

OPINION 139. 45

The undermentioned publications of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publi-
cations Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London,
S.W. 7 :—

OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in in-

OPINION

a5)

136.

137.

136.

139.

terpreting the generic names as-
signed by Freyer to species de-
scribed in his Neuere Bettrage zur
Schmetterlings kunde, 1833-1858 .

The suppression of the so-called
“ Erlangen List ” of 1801

Opinion supplementary to Opinion
Ir on the interpretation of Lat-
reille’s Considévations sur l’ordre
naturel des animaux composant les
classes des Crustacés, des Arach-
mides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres
disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 .

On the relative precedence to be
accorded to certain generic names
published in 1807 by Fabricius
and Hubner respectively for
identical genera in the Lepido-
ptera Rhopalocera .

On the method by which theamend-
ment to Article 25 of the Inter-
national Code adopted by the
Budapest Meeting of the Inter-
national Zoological Congress, re-
lating to the replacement of in-
valid names, should be inter-
preted

The name Cephus Latreille, [1802-
1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796,
in the Hymenoptera added to the
Official List of Generic Names .

price 8d.

price Is. od.

Ice Sao:

price Is. 6d.

price 2s. 6d.

40 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

OPINION 140. On the method of forming the
family names for Merops Lin-
naeus, 1758 (Aves) and _ for
Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) price 2s. od.

OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in
interpreting Article 4 of the In-
ternational Code relating to the
naming of families and sub-
families . . ‘price’ 2s 6d:

Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of the
late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the
aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions in the
Smithsoman Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except
a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and
are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to
remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as
funds are available, to reprint Opinions I to 133 as Volume 1 of
Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuNGAY, SUFFOLK.

REF

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 47-53)

OPINION 140

On the method of forming the family names
for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and for
Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1943

Price two shillings
(All rights reséréed) Phere.

sued 30th January, 1948

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5S.A.).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).}

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
Al Oueen:s) Gare, suondon,S.\Vene

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer SLONE (Us 2A8):

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). |

N“ATiona wws©°\F7

OPINION 140.

ON THE METHOD OF FORMING THE FAMILY NAMES
FOR MEROPS LINNAEUS, 1758 (AVES) AND FOR MEROPE
NEWMAN 1838 (INSECTA).

SUMMARY.—The family name for Merops Linnaeus, 1758
(Syst. Nat. (ed. 10):117) in Aves is MrEropmpaAE; the family
name for Merope Newman, 1838 (Ent. Mag. 5 (2) : 180) in Insecta
is MEROPEIDAE.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This question was first raised by the International Committee
on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in
1932. At this meeting the International Committee adopted the
following resolution :—

Le nom grec peporm du genre d’insecte se terminant en Eta, le nom de

la famille de ces insectes sera MEROPEIDAE, nom différant suffisaamment de
MEROPIDAE (derivé de Mevops, opis)

2. This resolution was submitted by the International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature to Section VIII (Section
on Nomenclature) of the Fifth International Congress of Ento-
mology, by whom it was unanimously approved. Finally, this
resolution was adopted by the Fifth International Congress of
Entomology in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the
Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the
Congress.

Il—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

3. This subject was considered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of the
Session held in Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting of
the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meeting,
which was held on the morning of 16th September 1935, the
International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 14) :—

50 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

to render an Opinion declaring :—

(i) that the family name for the genus Merops Linnaeus,
1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10): 117) in the Aves is MERO-
PIDAE; and

(11) that the family name for the genus Mevope Newman,
1838 (Ent. Mag. 5 (2): 180) in the Insecta is MERO-
PEIDAE.

4. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 22 of the
Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday,
18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This Report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

5. The Opinion set out in paragraph 3 above was concurred in
by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the
Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates:—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

6. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since that Meeting has
any Commissioner who was not present on that occasion indicated
disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Com-
mission in this matter.

7. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither
present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission
nor were represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the
present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and
Stiles.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 140. 51

III.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion involves
a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Commission,
such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least
fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the
Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former
Opinion rendered by the Commission; and

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FrRANcISs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Forty (Opinion 140) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twenty-fourth day of December,
Nineteen Hundred and Forty Two, in a single copy, which shall
remain deposited in the archives of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

52 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

NOTICES.

The undermentioned publications of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publi-
cations Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London,

S.W. 7 :—

OPINION 134.

OPINION 135.

OPINION 136.

OPINION 137.

OPINION 138.

OPINION 139.

On the method to be adopted in in-
terpreting the generic names as-
signed by Freyer to species de-
scribed in his Neuere Bettrage zur
Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 .

The suppression of the so-called
) Exlangens ist. of ncom

Opinion supplementary to Opinion
1r on the interpretation of Lat-
reille’s Considévations sur lV ordre
naturel des animaux composant les
classes des Crustacés, des Arach-
mides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres
disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 .

On the relative precedence to be
accorded to certain generic names
published in 1807 by Fabricius
and | hiivbner respectively, ior
identical genera in the Lepido-
ptera Rhopalocera

On the method by which the amend-
ment to Article 25 of the Inter-
national Code adopted by the
Budapest Meeting of the Inter-
national Zoological Congress, re-
lating to the replacement of in-
valid names, should be inter-
preted

The name Cephus Latreille, [1802-
1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796,
in the Hymenoptera added to the
Official List of Generic Names .

price 8d.

price Is. od.

price 1s. 0d:

price Is. 6d.

price 2s. 6d.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 140. 53

OPINION 140. On the method of forming the
family names for Mevops Lin-
MACHSHEE 75 O0 (eves) sand) 10r
Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) price 2s. od.

OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in
interpreting Article 4 of the In-
ternational Code relating to the
naming of families and_ sub-
families . price 2s. 6d.

Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of the
late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the
aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions in the
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except
a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and
are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to
remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as
funds are available, to reprint Opinions I to 133 as Volume I of
Opinions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

eet af oe Set PANE al a el
PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuNGAY, SUFFOLK.

Sn
~ re
!
‘ (
‘ iy y H
9 ee Lag on "
re ya r yh te ere }
un ni P b . Al ye ae | K eam Se yt 4 oul hk
a P a eo \ . f
‘ *
.
“y z
& »
-
>
1
.
- }
t
‘
oa -
‘
" rm
‘ <
*
A 4
/
‘
‘ ‘
*
.
.
4 * 5.
J
\
ie 0
‘
Cher ah
iy ce ie
eo . ity ae
i
.
\
2 TP
,
-
d '
a
. :
P =

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 55-66)

OPINION 141

On the principles to be observed in interpreting
Article 4 of the International Code relating to
- the naming of families and subfamilies

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
‘Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1943

Price two shillings and sixpence

ssued 30th January, 1948 ga.

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A,).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1930, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935)

MATIONAL nyse 7

OPINION 141.

ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING
ARTICLE 4 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE RELATING TO
THE NAMING OF FAMILIES AND SUBFAMILIES.

_SUMMARY.—The following principles are to be observed in
interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the
naming of families and subfamilies :—

(1) The oldest available generic name in the family need not

be taken as the type genus of the family. }

(2) An author establishing a new family is free to select as

the type genus of that family whatever generic unit he
considers the most appropriate.

NoTE :—So far as possible, the genus selected should
be the best known and commonest of the taxonomic
units concerned, z.e., it should be the most central of the
genera proposed to be included in the family so estab-
lished.

(3) The name of a family is based upon the name of its type
genus. The fact that a given generic name is selected to
form the name of a family constitutes ipso facto a definite
designation of that genus as the type genus of that family.
Example :—The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758, is de-
finitely and unambiguously designated as the type genus
of the family Muscipak by reason of the stem of the word
Musca being used in the formation of the family name.

Note :—There are a few well-established family names
proposed by early authors where the foregoing principle
has not been observed. Such names should be treated
as exceptions. Any ease of doubt should be referred to
the Commission for decision.

The principles set out in (1) to (8) above in regard to
family names apply equally to the names of subfamilies.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

In March 1932 Dr. Jean M. Pirlot of the Institut van Beneden,
University of Liege, submitted to the Commission a request for
an Opinion on a case which involved two problems, the first of
interest to students of a particular group of Crustacea, the second
of interest to workers in all zoological groups, since it was con-
cerned with the interpretation of Article 4 of the International
Code relating to the naming of families and subfamilies.

58 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

2. The following is the case submitted by Dr. Pirlot as later
summarised by the Commission in Opinion 133 :—

1. Type of Uvothoe. Dana (1852, p. 311) in an extensive key summary,
down to and including genera, describes Uvothoe Dana, with generic diag-
nosis but without mention of any species. This appears to be the original
publication of the name.

The following year, Dana (1853, p. 921) discusses Uvothoe and cites two
species, U. vostvatus [which is given unconditionally] and U. irrostvatus
[which is clearly sub judice]. This is apparently the first allocation of
any species to this genus.

Under Article 30e8 of the Rules, U. ivrostvatus is excluded as type, and
U. vostvatus automatically becomes type regardless of the fact whether one
dates the genus from 1852 or 1853. Compare Opinions 35 and 46. For
determination of this point it is not necessary to follow the literature
further and the fact that U. ivrostvatus has been used as type by some
authors is irrelevant as the case now stands.

2. Family name. A complication has arisen because of the fact that
U. ivvostvatus has been used as the type of Uvothoe.

Stebbing (1906, Das Tierreich 21 : 131) retains U. ivrostvatus in Urothoe,
family HavusTortIpAE, and classifies (1dem:146) U. rostvatus in Pont-
harpinia Stebbing, 1897, mt. pinguis, family PHOXOCEPHALIDAE.

II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. Dr. Pirlot’s chief object was to obtain from the Commission
a decision on the question of the type of the genus Uvothoe Dana,
and it was therefore primarily to this part of Dr. Pirlot’s inquiry
that the Commission first directed their attention. Dr. Stiles
accordingly prepared for the consideration of the Commission a
draft Opinion that was chiefly concerned with the case of Uvothoe
Dana, the discussion on the more general—and much more
important—question being directed mainly to its relation to the
particular case of Urothoe Dana.

4. In the circular letter (€.L: 274)) under cover tomar imcimnie
communicated the draft Opinion to the members of the Com-
mission for consideration, Dr. Stiles drew attention (February
1935) to the fact that the second part of the case submitted by
Dr. Pirlot raised issues of interpretation in regard to Article 4 of
the Code, which were already being considered by the Commission
in a different connexion. Dr. Stiles accordingly suggested that
any preliminary views that might be formed by Commissioners
on the draft Opinion should be subject to the further discussion
at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at Lisbon later
in the course of that year.

III—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION.
5. The two questions raised by Dr. Pirlot, together with the
draft Opinion prepared by Dr. Stiles, were considered by the

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION T4I. 59

International Commission at the fourth meeting of the Session
held in Lisbon in September 1935 during the Meeting of the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meeting,
which was held on the morning of Tuesday, 17th September 1935,
the Commission decided to consider separately the two questions
involved in this case.

6. The Commission considered first the question of the type
of the genus Uvothoe Dana. On this matter the Commission
agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 6) :—

that, as a draft Opinion on the type of the genus Uvothoe Dana, 1852,
prepared by Commissioner Stiles, had already been circulated for a postal
vote, the question should be left to be settled by the Commission by that
method.

7. The Commission then turned to the second of the problems
raised in the case submitted by Dr. Pirlot, namely that in regard
to the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code, which relates to the
naming of families. On this question, the Commission agreed
(Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 7) :—

to render an Opinion :—

(i) laying it down that Article 4 of the Code does not
require that the oldest generic name in the family or
subfamily concerned must be taken as the type genus
of the family or subfamily ;

(ii) incorporating also the general propositions relating to
the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code embodied in
the draft Opinion on the case of the genus Uvothoe
Dana as soon as that Opinion had been approved in the
manner agreed upon in Conclusion 6 above.*

8. The decision of the Commission set out in the first part of
the Conclusion quoted above was incorporated as paragraph 21 in
the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This Report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously adopted at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

* The text of Conclusion 6 is quoted in full in the preceding paragraph
(paragraph 6) of the present Opinion.

60 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

9g. The decisions set out in paragraphs 7 and 8 above were
concurred in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates
present at the Lisbon Meeting of the International Commission,
namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman ; Hemming; Jordan; > Pellecnme
Berets.) stejmecer

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki;
Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wee
Richter; Mortensen vice Apstein.

10. The decisions recorded above were dissented from by no
Commissioner or Alternate at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since
that Meeting has any Commissioner who was not present on that
occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then reached
by the Commission in this matter.

rr. At the conclusion of the Lisbon Meeting, Dr. Stiles resigned
the office of Secretary to the Commission but at the request of
the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon agreed to
officiate as Acting Secretary to the Commission, pending the
election of his successor which did not take place until October
1936. In the intervening period Dr. Stiles, acting in virtue of
the authority conferred by Article 7 of the By-Laws of the Com-
mission, announced on behalf of the Commission ten Opinions
(Opinions 124-133), all of which had been under consideration
before the meeting of the Commission in Lisbon in September
1935. One of these Opinions (Opinion 133) was that relating to ©
the type of the genus Uvothoe Dana (see paragraph 6 above),
which in the period that had elapsed since the Lisbon Meeting had
secured the number of votes required for its adoption by the
Commission.

IZ. [he issue of Opinion 133 thus made it possible to proceed
with the preparation of the present Opinion embodying the
decision of the Commission set out in paragraph 7 in regard to
the interpretation of Article 4 of the Code.

13. The text relating to this subject as finally approved in
Opinion 133 reads as follows :—

(1) Pirlot raises an important question in regard to PHOXOCEPHALIDAE,
namely :

(2) Must the oldest included generic name be taken as type for the
family name? To this, the answer is in the negative.

(3) Article 4 of the Rules reads: ‘‘ The name of a family is formed by
adding the ending idae, the name of a subfamily by adding inae, to the
stem of the name of its type genus.”’

(4) This rule does not prescribe how the type genus is to be selected ;
and in the absence of restrictions covering this point it is to be assumed

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I4TI. 61

that, in accordance with custom, the original author is free to select as
type genus any generic unit that he prefers. This is in harmony with
the spirit of Article 30, which obviously leaves an original author of a
genus entirely free to select as type species any species he wishes thus to
designate. If the original author of a family (or of a genus) were compelled
to select as type the oldest genus (or the oldest species) in the proposed
family (or genus), this might confine his choice to a little known and very
rare taxonomic unit—a restriction which would obviously be contrary to
the interest both of taxonomy and of nomenclature. In this connection it
is to be recalled that the “‘ type’’ selected is the nomenclatorial type as
distinguished from the assumed anatomical norm.

(5) Since (with the exception of isolated instances by early authors)
family names are based upon the name of the respective type genus, such
family name constitutes, 1pso facto, a definite designation of the type genus.
For instance, Musca is definitely and unambiguously designated generic
type by the use of the family MusciDAE, Homo of HoMINIDAE, Ascaris of
ASCARIDAE, etc. It would be a nomenclatorial veductio ad absurdum to
consider any other genus as type of any of these families. The concepts of
a given family are not identical as adopted by different authors and if the
rule obtained that the oldest genus must be the type genus of the family,
the family name would be constantly subject to possible change according
to the subjective ideas of authors from year to year; accordingly, even
relatively stable nomenclature for family names would be hopeless, and
synonymy in family names would be potentially indefinite and chaotic.

In the Opinion as published the paragraphs quoted above were
unnumbered but numbering has been inserted on the present
occasion in order to facilitate reference to particular passages in
the analysis given in paragraph 17 below.

14. The following thirteen (13) Commissioners concurred in the
whole of Opinion 133 from which the above passage is an extract :—

Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fantham; Hem-
mimes jordan; Peters; Richter; Silvestri; Stejneger;
Stiles; Stone.

Commissioner Hemming’s vote was received before the issue
of the Opinion but too late for his name to be included in the
Opinion among the Commissioners who voted for the whole of
that document.

15. In signifying his concurrence in Opinion 133, Commissioner
Stone added the following note :—

I concur in the Opinion that the first author to fix a type genus for a
family is free to select any contained genus as the type, but in case the
_ hame then used for that genus is found to be untenable the family name
changes in accordance with the change in the generic name.

For example, the American Wood Warblers were named SyLVICOLIDAE
by Gray, based on the genus Sylvicola (type Parus americanus Linn.),
but Sylvicola was found to be preoccupied in mollusks and as a substitute
Compsothlypis was proposed, and the family name changes to Compso-
THLYPIDAE. If this were not done we might have Sylvicola for mollusks
and SYLVICOLIDAE for Birds !

Commissioner Silvestri, who recorded his vote for Opinion 133
aiter Commissioner Stone’s note had been circulated to the

62 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

members of the Commission, stated: “ I agree perfectly with the

opinion of Commissioner Stone’’. It will be observed that the

note added by Commissioners Stone and Silvestri is not concerned
with Article 4 of the Code (which relates to the naming of families
and subfamilies) but is an amplification of Article 5 (which relates
to the circumstances in which it is necessary to change the name
of a family or subfamily).

16. One (1) Commissioner (Apstein) dissented from the portion
of Opinion 133 relating to the naming of families and subfamilies.

17. The principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4 of
the Code that are enunciated in the passage in Opinion 133 quoted
in paragraph 13 above are the following :—

(a) In paragraph (2) the Commission lay it down that it is
not necessary that the oldest included generic name should
be taken as the type genus of a family and therefore used
in forming the name of the family. This is the proposi-
tion on which, as shown in paragraphs 7 and 8 above, the
Commission adopted a resolution at their Lisbon Meeting.
In the first sentence of paragraph (4) the Commission
state that the original author of a family “‘is free to
select as type genus any generic unit that he prefers ”’.
In the third sentence of the same paragraph the Com-
mission point out that, if the original author of a family
were compelled to select as type the oldest genus, the

_ result might be that the type genus of the family would
be a little known and very rare taxonomic unit—a result
that would be contrary to the interest both of taxonomy
and of nomenclature.

(c) In the first sentence of paragraph (5) the Commission
state that, with the exception of isolated instances by
early authors, family names “‘ are based upon the name
of the respective type genus ’’ and that a family name so
established “ constitutes, 7pso facto, a definite designation
of the type genus ’’. In the second sentence of the same
paragraph, the Commission illustrate this principle by
giving three examples, of which the first is provided by
the names Musca and MuscipAE. The Commission _
point out that by the use of the name MuscIDAE the
genus Musca is definitely and unambiguously designated
as the type genus of that family.

-_™—~
Sy
cea

As drafted Opinion 133 refers in terms only to family names but,
as it is a statement of the principles to be observed in interpreting

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I4T. 63

Article 4 of the Code, which refers to subfamily names equally
with family names, it follows that the principles enunciated in
Opinion 133 apply also to subfamily names. That this was so as
regards the first of the three principles in question was moreover
expressly stated in the resolution adopted by the Commission at
Lisbon (see paragraph 7 above).

18. Thus the principles to be observed in interpreting Article 4
of the Code (i) as set out in the resolution adopted by the Com-
mission at their Lisbon Meeting in September 1935 (paragraph
7 above) and (ii) as amplified in the second part of Opinion 133
issued in October 1936 (paragraphs 13 and 17 above) may be
summarised as follows :—

Summary :—The following principles are to be observed in
interpreting Article 4 of the International Code :—

(1) The oldest available generic name in the family need not
be taken as the type genus of the family.

(2) An author establishing a new family is free to select as
the type genus of that family whatever generic unit he
considers the most appropriate.

NOTE :—So far as possible, the genus selected should
be the best known and commonest of the taxonomic units
concerned, 7.¢. it should be the most central of the genera
proposed to be included in the family so established.

(3) The name of a family is based upon the name of its type
genus. The fact that a given generic name is selected to
form the name of a family constitutes z7pso facto a definite
designation of that genus as the type genus of that
family. Example :—The genus Musca Linnaeus, 1758,
is definitely and unambiguously designated as the type
genus of the family MUScIDAE by reason of the stem of the
word Musca being used in the formation of the family
name.

Note :—There are a few well-established family
names proposed by early authors where the foregoing
principle has not been observed. Such names should be
treated as exceptions. Any case of doubt should be
referred to the Commission for decision.

(4) The principles set out in (1) to (3) above in regard to
family names apply equally to the names of subfamilies.

19. [he propositions. set out in paragraph 18 above have been
concurred in by nineteen (19) Commissioners either when con-
curring in Opinion 133 or at Lisbon (either personally or through

64 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Alternates) when adopting the resolution set out in paragraph 7
above :—

Commissioners :—Cabrera; Calman; Chapman; Esaki; Fant-
ham; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin: Peters. siemens
Steimeser.s Stles: souome:

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch tending vec
Richter; Mortensen vice Apstein.

20. One (1) Commissioner (Apstein), whose Alternate at Lisbon
had voted in favour of these propositions, subsequently voted
against the portion of Opinion 133 relating to the interpretation
of Article 4 of the Code. Two Commissioners (Bolivar and
Horvath) who were neither present at Lisbon nor represented
there by Alternates did not vote on Opinion 133; im consequence
neither voted on the matters dealt with in the present Opinion.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, to be valid, the
Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any former
Opinion rendered by the Commission; and

WHEREAS nineteen (19) Members of the Commission have
signified their concurrence in the propositions set out in the
present Opinion either personally or through Alternates at the
Meeting of the Commission. held in Lisbon in September 1935 :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I4I. 65

every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Forty One of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this twenty-sixth day of December, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Two, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

NOTICES.

The undermentioned publications of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publi-
cations Office of the Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London,
S.W. 7 :—

OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in in-
terpreting the generic names as-
signed by Freyer to species de-
scribed in his Neuere Bewtraége zur
Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 . price 8d.

OPINION 135. The suppression of the so-called
“ Erlangen List ” of 1801 price 8d.

OPINION 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion
II on the interpretation of Lat-
reille’s Considévations sur lV ordre
naturel des animaux composant les
classes des Crustacés, des Avrach-
mdes et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres
disposés en familles, Paris, 1810 . price Is. Od.

66 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

OPINION 137. On the relative precedence to be
accorded to certain generic names
published in 1807 by Fabricius
and Hiibner respectively for
identical genera in the mes
ptera Rhopalocera . price Is. 6d.

OPINION 138. On the method by which the A aienel
ment to Article 25 of the Inter-
national Code adopted by the
Budapest Meeting of the Inter-
national Zoological Congress, re-
lating to the replacement of in-
valid names, should be inter-
pretedame price 1s. 6d.

OPINION 139. The name Cephus Latreille, ree
1803] and Astata Latreille, 1796,
in the Hymenoptera added to the
Official List of Generic Names . price 2s. 6d.

OPINION 140. On the method of forming the
family names for Merops Lin-
naeus, 1758 (Aves) and for
Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) price 2s. od.

OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in
interpreting Article 4 of the In-
ternational Code relating to the
naming of families and sub-
families : : ' . Mpricersziod,

Note :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three
(Opinions 1-133) rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature were not published by the Commission
itself owing to lack of funds. Through the intermediary of the
late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secretary to the International
Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very kindly came to the
aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the Opinions in the
Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all except
a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and
are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to
remedy the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as
funds are available, to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume I of
Opimions Rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 67-80)

OPINION 142

Suspension of the Rules for Satyrus
Latreille, 1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1943
Price two shillings and sixpence

Issued 25th March, 1943

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.). ;

(vacant).*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the deal on 24th January, ro41, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

TEA
MONA INSP y
PE QAR NS TIES
pr Leer Gg eS
ES “Cd
? ;
4
4
\

OPINION 142.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR SATYRUS LATREILLE,
1810 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under Suspension of the Rules Papilio actaea
Esper, [1780], is hereby designated as the type of Satyrus Latreille,
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) and that genus, so defined, is hereby
added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

1TH STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission in a
letter dated 24th October 1934, in which Commissioner Francis
Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley, Keeper of the Department of
Entomology, British Museum (Natural History), acting on behalf
also of Mr. W. H. T. Tams, Assistant Keeper, Department of
Entomology,. British Museum (Natural History), jointly invited
the Commission to render Opinions in regard to this, and certain
other, generic names in the Lepidoptera. The passage in that
letter relating to the name Satyrus Latreille reads as follows :—

the point of view of the Heterocera, we ask the International Com-
mission to issue an Opinion declaring against the validity of Retzius,
Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer published in 1783. In this connection we ask
also for a complementary Opinion to add the name Satyrus Latreille,
1810, to the Official List of Generic Names. For a statement of

reasons for making these recommendations, see Hemming, 1934,
Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 35-40.

2. In a further letter dated 1st December 1934, Commissioner
Hemming explained that he had prepared for the consideration
of the Commission a condensed statement of the grounds on
which the proposed action was sought, partly because the state-
ment so prepared was in a much more convenient form than the
note on the genus Satyrus contained in the work referred to above
and partly because he was anxious that the consideration of the
case of that genus should not become involved in the controversy
relating to the meaning of the term “ binary nomenclature ”’,
a risk which he thought might otherwise arise. The condensed
statement so submitted by Commissioner Hemming reads as
follows :—

70 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Case of the generic name Satyvus Latreille, 1810.

The following is a condensed statement of the grounds on which I request
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an
Opinion on the case of the name Satyrus Latreille, 1810, and the nature of
the Opinion desired :—

(a) From the five species given by Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim.
Crust. Avach. Ins. : 355, 440) for the then new genus Satyrus Latreille,
the first to be selected as the type of that genus under Article 30 (II)
(g) of the International Code was Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758,
that species having been so designated by Scudder in 1875 (Proc.
Amer. Acad. Avis Sc1., Boston 10: 265, 266).

(b) There are two common palaearctic species of SATYRIDAE, nameiy
Papilio megeva Linnaeus, 1767, and Papilio maeva Linnaeus, 1758,
to which has been applied the French vernacular name “‘ le Satyre”’.
Both these species have been referred almost invariably for over 100
years to the genus Pavarge Hubner, [1819], of which the congeneric
species Papilio aegeria Linnaeus, 1758, is the type.

(c) Crotch claimed (1872, Cistula ent. 1: 62) that Papilio megeva Lin-
naeus, 1767, was the type of the genus Satyvus Latreille on the
ground that “‘ this is the species commonly called ‘le Satyre’ and
hence evidently the true type of the genus ”’.

(d) Crotch’s conclusion was not adopted by lepidopterists either then
or subsequently. Similarly Scudder’s selection of Papilio galathea
Linnaeus as the type of this genus was completely ignored, that
species continuing for many years to be referred to the genus Melan-
avgia Meigen, 1828, of which it is the type.

(e) Both in the time of Crotch and Scudder and almost universally
ever since, Lepidopterists have treated Satyvus Latreille as though its
type were one of the large palaearctic ‘“‘ Browns’’, of which the
British ‘‘ Grayling’”’ (Papilio semele Linnaeus, 1758) is a familiar
example.

(f) Quite recently Higgins (1934, Ent. Rec. 46: 44) has claimed that
Papilio maeva Linnaeus is the type of Satyvus Latreille by absolute
tautonymy under Article 30 (I) (d) of the International Code, the
argument brought forward in support of this contention being that
one of the synonyms of Papilio maeva Linnaeus is Papilio satyrus
Retzius, 1783.

(g) The argument in (f) above is valid only :—

(i) if it can properly be accepted that Papilio maeva Linnaeus is
one of the species originally included by Latreille in the genus
Satyrus ; and

(ii) if Retzius, 1783, Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer, isa work that can properly
be accepted for nomenclatorial purposes.

(h) Until the issue of Opinion 11 by the International Commission ‘on
Zoological Nomenclature it would have been possible to argue that
the species cited by Latreille in 1810 for the genera there indicated
were no more than examples of the species that belonged to the
respective genera, notwithstanding the fact that he spoke of them in
relation to those genera as “‘ ’espéce qui leur sert de type’”’. On this
basis it would have been possible to argue that Papilio maeva Lin-
naeus was one of the species covered by Latreille’s diagnosis for the
genus Satyvus and was one of the species included by him in that
genus although he did not cite it by name. Since the issue of Opinion
11, which lays it down that the species cited by Latreille in 1810
are to be taken as the types of the genera in question and not as
mere examples of typical species referable to those genera, this
view (whatever its former merits) seems no longer tenable.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 71
(i) Whatever may be the correct interpretation of the term “ binary
nomenclature ’’ and therefore the status of genera first published in
Retzius, 1783, Gen. Spec. Ins. Geey, it cannot possibly be claimed
that this work of Retzius’s is a binominal work, in spite of the fact
that in the case of his Papilio satyrus (as contrasted with many other
names used in the same work) Retzius used a binominal combination.
If therefore—as seems to me clearly to be the case—new specific
names (even when apparently binominal) published by Retzius in
1783 must be rejected under Article 25 (b) of the Code, no argument
regarding the type of Satyrus Latreille can be validly based upon the
use by Retzius on this occasion of the words Papilio satyrus to describe
the species previously named Papilio maeva by Linnaeus.

(j) For the reasons given in (h) and (i) above it appears to me to be
perfectly clear that there is no substance in the claim that the type
of Satyrus Latreille is Papilio maera Linnaeus by absolute tautonymy.
It follows from this that Scudder’s selection of Papilio galathea
Linnaeus as the type (see (a) above) is perfectly valid under the Code.

(k) It is extremely important, however, that in the case of an important
genus such as the present which is the type genus of a very well-
known family (SATYRIDAE) there should be no room of any kind for
argument as to the type of the genus. In order therefore to settle
this matter once and for all, I consider that it is very desirable that
the International Commission should render an Opinion definitely
fixing the type of this genus.

(1) The proposal which, jointly with Mr. N. D. Riley and Mr. W. H. T.
Tams, I have submitted to the International Commission is that they
should render Opinions, if necessary under Suspension of the Rules,
(a) declaring that Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of
Satyrus Latreille, 1810, and putting that genus, so defined, on the
Official List of Generic Names, and (b) declaring that specific names
first published by Retzius in 1783 (Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer) have no
status in nomenclature, since in that work Retzius did not use the
binominal system of nomenclature.

i ith SUBSKOUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. This case, as presented to the Commission, involved two
entirely distinct problems, namely (a) what is the type of the
genus Satyrus Latreille, 1810, under the Code, and (b) should
Retzius, 1783, Gen. Spec. Ins. Geer, be accepted for the purposes of
Article 25 (b) of the Code as the work of an author who had applied
the principles of binary nomenclature. The first of these prob-
lems was of interest only to specialists in the Lepidoptera; the
second raised much wider issues since it involved not only the
status of Retzius, 1783, but also the meaning to be attached to the
term “ binary nomenclature ’’ as used in the International Code.
At the time that the present case was submitted to the Commission,
this latter problem was one of especial difficulty since at their
meeting held at Padua in 1930 the Eleventh International Congress
of Zoology had passed a resolution on this subject which was
awaiting consideration by the Permanent Committee of the
International Zoological Congresses when that body should next

72 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

meet at the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon
in the following year (1935). In these circumstances the Inter-
national Commission decided as a first step to invite the Inter-
national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to consider
and report upon the purely entomological aspects of the present
application, while reserving for later consideration the portion of
the application which involved the interpretation of the term
“binary nomenclature ’’.

4. This case was accordingly considered by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting
held at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology. In the course of
the preliminary discussion of this case it became apparent that
there was a strong feeling not only among Lepidopterists on both
sides of the Atlantic but also generally among the members of the
International Committee that in the case of an extremely well-
known name (such as Satyrus Latreille) that had been the type
genus of a family for over a hundred years it was essential that
the type of that genus should be a species belonging to the group
which for so many years had universally been referred to that
genus. Any other course, it was felt, would clearly result in
greater confusion than uniformity. At this point, Commissioner
Hemming, who was present at the discussion as a member of the
International Committee, indicated that the proposal which
Messrs. Riley, Tams and he had submitted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in the case of Satyrus
Latreille had been designed solely with the object of securing a
binding decision on the disputed question of the species which
underthe Code should beaccepted as having been validly designated
as the type of that genus. He and his colleagues had always
recognised that, unless the rules were suspended, there would be
no possibility of securing as the type of this important genus a
species belonging to the group that had for so long universally
been accepted as belonging to the genus Satyrus Latreille. In
view of the feeling that had been expressed in the International
Committee in favour of a more radical solution, he would very
gladly prepare an amended petition in substitution for that
submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature in 1934. Before doing so, he would wish to consult with
Messrs. Riley and Tams (who had acted jointly with him in sub-
mitting the original proposal to the International Commission)
and with other lepidopterists then present in Madrid for the

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 73

meeting of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology.
The International Committee approved this proposal and invited
Commissioner Hemming to prepare a_ revised statement
accordingly.

5. The following is the text of the revised proposals for dealing
with this case prepared by Commissioner Hemming during the
Madrid meeting for the consideration of the International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature :—

Is0s, CASI2, Ol? SAI ROS ICAI RIL y oak),

Revised proposals submitted by Mr. Francis Hemming to the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held
at Madrid in September 1935.

(z) In accordance with the request of the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature, I submit herewith for their consideration
the following revised proposals for dealing with the case of Satyvus Latreille,
1810. These proposals are in substitution for the more limited proposals
on this subject submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature by Mr. N. D. Riley, Mr. W. H. T. Tams and myself in 1934.

(2) The relevant considerations in this case are the following :—

(a) When founding the genus Satyrus (1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust.
Ins. : 355, 440), Latreille included five species in the genus but
specified no type.

(b) Of Latreille’s originally included species, three are not today regarded
as belonging to the SATYRIDAE. These species are :—

(i) Papilio teucey Linnaeus, 1758, is referred to the genus Caligo
Fabricius, 1807, in the BRASSOLIDAE.
(il) Papilio phidippus Linnaeus, 1763, is the type of Amathusia
__ Fabricius, 1807, the type genus of the family AMATHUSIIDAE.
(ili) Papilio sophovae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of Brassolis
Fabricius, 1807, the type genus of the family BRASSOLIDAE.
(c) Of the two remaining species originally placed in the genus Satyrus
by Latreille, Papilio preva Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of the Neo-
tropical genus Haeteva Fabricius, 1807, and Papilio galathea Linnaeus,
1758, is the type of the Palaearctic genus Agapetes Billberg, 1820
(and of the more commonly used Melanargia Meigen, 1828).
(d) The two first type designations for Satyrus Latreille are invalid under
the Code, since in each case the species so designated is not one of the
‘species originally included in the genus by Latreille. The species in
question are :—

(i) Papilio constantia Cramer, [1777], designated by Butler, 1867

_ (Entomologist 3: 279); and

(il) Papilio actaea Esper, [1780], designated by Butler in 1868
(Ent. mon. Mag. 4: 194).

(e) In 1872 (Cistula ent. 1: 62) Crotch designated Papilio megera
Linnaeus, 1767, as the type of this genus on the ground that “ this
is the species commonly called ‘ le Satyre’ and hence evidently the
true type of the genus’’. This designation is invalid, since Papilio
megeva Linnaeus is not one of Latreille’s originally included species.

(f) The first of Latreille’s originally included species to be designated
as the type of this genus was Papilio galathea Linnaeus, 1758, which
was so designated by Scudder in 1875 (Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sct.,
Boston 10: 265, 266).

74 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(3) No well-known generic name would be displaced by accepting Papilio
galathea Linnaeus as the type of Satyrus Latreille, but that course is open
to very strong objection, since the transfer so involved would disturb the
universally accepted practice of over I00 years by removing Satyrus
Latreille from the great group of species of which Papilio semele Linnaeus,
1758 (the British “ Grayling’) is a representative example. or distsyor
the species normally placed in the genus Satyvus Latreille, see Staudinger
(1901, im Staudinger & Rebel, Cat. Lepid. pal. Faunengeb. 1: 53-59) and
Seitz ([1908], Grossschmett. Evde 1: 121-132).

(4) The only other species now accepted as belonging to the SATYRIDAE
that was placed in the genus Satyrus by Latreille is (as shown in paragraph
(2) (c) above) Papilio piera Linnaeus, 1758. Quite apart from the fact
that this species is the type of the well-known genus Haeteva Fabricius,
1807, an older name than Satyrus Latreille, the selection of that species
as the type of Satyrus Latreille would be far more objectionable than the
selection of Papilio galathea Linnaeus, since it would involve a still greater
change in the meaning to be applied to that genus.

(5) If therefore Satyrus Latreille is to be preserved in its commonly
accepted sense, it will be necessary for the International Commission by
using its plenary powers to fix as the type of this genus under suspension of
the rules a species that was not included init by Latreille. I recognise that
this is a drastic step but nevertheless it is the one which I recommend
should be adopted, since any other course would clearly result in greater
confusion than uniformity. As regards the species so to be designated
as the type of Satyvus Latreille, I recommend that this should be Papilio
actaea Esper, [1780], since (a) that species is a good example of the group
of species that have for so long been placed in this genus and (b) it was
selected (though erroneously under the present Code) as the type of this
genus by Butler as long ago as 1868.

(6) I have discussed this problem with Mr. Riley, Mr. Tams and other
lepidopterists now present in Madrid and with Professor James Chester
Bradley who is in possession of the views on this subject of representative
lepidopterists in the United States. All whom I have consulted are in
agreement with the recommendation set out above.

6. On further consideration of this case, the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed to recommend
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature under
suspension of the rules to fix Papilio actaea Esper as the type of
Satyrus Latreille for the reasons set out in the statement given in
the preceding paragraph. At the same time, the International
Committee agreed that the need for a final settlement of the type
of this genus was so great that, if the International Commission
were to take the view that this was too drastic a course to adopt,
it was desirable that they should give further consideration to the
more limited proposals already before them on this subject.
This, and other, recommendations adopted by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid
meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of
Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September

1935.

ree

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 75

Hi.—lHE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

7. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published,
had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the
illness of Dr. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which
a decision could properly be taken and that, in so far as this in-
volved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases
where the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been
complied with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as
soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon
Congress and that no Opinion should be rendered and published
thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date
on which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed
journals for publication. The case of the genus Satyrus Latreille
was one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by
the Commission at Lisbon under the above procedure.

8. This case was considered by the International Commission at
their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session,
2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when the Commission agreed * :—

(a) to suspend the rules in the case of the following generic
names :—

(ii) Satyrus Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust.
Arach. Ins. : 355, 440;
(c) to declare that the type of Satyrus Latreille, 1810, is Papilio
actaea Esper, [1780], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tag-
SONMEetL.2 27:

ey (eh 8. (0, er fe

* Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which relate to the present case are
here quoted.

76 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(i) to add the zeneric names). Saiyyus LatreilleyuS10 yee
to the Official List of Generic Names, with the typels|
indicated above ;

ee e¢ @ @© @

to take note that in view of the decision set out in (a), (c),
and (i) above, the request for an Opinion rejecting specific
names first published in Retzius, 1783, Carol Degeer
genera et species Insectorum et generalissimt auctoris scriptis
extvaxit, digessit, latine quoad partem reddidit, et termino-
logiam Insectorum Linneanum addidit A. I. Retzvus sub-
mitted to the Commission in 1934 had been withdrawn by
the petitioners ;

(1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above.

g. The foregoing decisions in regard to the name Satyrus
Latreille were embodied in paragraph 28 of the Report which at
their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September
1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology. This report was unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology by which it was unanimously adopted at the Concilium
Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
7 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology held at Monaco in March 10913,
by which the said International Congress conferred upon the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary
power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where in
the judgment of the Commission the strict application of the rules
would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. In
the period that has elapsed since the advertisement in the said
journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the present
case, no communication of any kind has been addressed to the
International Commission objecting to the issue of an Opinion
in the terms proposed.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 142. 77

11. The Opinion as set out in paragraph 8 above was concurred
in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the
Lisbon meeting of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
meters, and Sveimeger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vwice Esaki;
Innadley vice stone, "Beier wee Handlirsch; Arndt vce
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Altermate present at the Lisbon Meeting. Nor since that
Meeting has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the above Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

Pe OMIOKITY FOK THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanim-
ously in favour of the proposed Suspension of the Rules; and

WHEREAS the Suspension of the Rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible Sus-
pension of the Rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting
held in Monaco in March 1913; and

78 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcISs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion One Hundred
and Forty Two (Opinion 142) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, FRaNcis HEMMING, Secretary to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have
signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this twelfth day of January, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

NOTICES.

The undermentioned publications of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publications Office of the
Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 :—

OPINION 142. 79

OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to
species described in his Neuere Beitrage zur
Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 : ;

The suppression of the so-called “ eens
List” of 1801

Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra-
tions génévales suv lovdre naturel des ani-
maux composant les classes des Crustacés,
des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés
en familles, Paris, 1810

On the relative precedence to be accorded
to certain generic names published in
1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respec-
tively for identical genera in the Lepido-
ptera Rhopalocera

On the method by which the amendment to
Article 25 of the International Code
adopted by the Budapest Meeting of
the International Zoological Congress,
relating to the replacement of invalid
names, should be interpreted

The names Cephus Latreille, [1802— -1803],
and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno-
ptera added to the Official List of Generic
Names

On the method of forming the family names
for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and

price 8d.

OPINION 135.

price 8d.

OPINION 136.

DEICE 1S Od:

OPINION 137.

PrICe 1S. Od:

OPINION 138.

OMICS LS, Od.
OPINION 139.

ICS BS, Oa

OPINION 140.

OPINION

Merope Newman, 1838 (Insecta)

On the principles to be observed in interpret-
ing Article 4 of the International Code re-
lating to the naming of families and sub-
families

Suspension of the Rules for Satyrus Latreille,
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)

price 2s.

pce 25.

[DINOS BS

6d.

Nore :—Opinions One to One Hundred and Thirty-Three (Opinions
1-133) rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature were not published by the Commission itself owing to lack of funds.
Through the intermediary of the late Dr. C. W. Stiles, at that time Secre-
tary to the International Commission, the Smithsonian Institution very
kindly came to the aid of the Commission and agreed to publish the
Opinions in the Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections. Unfortunately, all
except a few of the later of the above Opinions are now out of print, and
are therefore not obtainable by working zoologists. In order to remedy
the serious position so created, it is proposed, as soon as funds are available,
to reprint Opinions 1 to 133 as Volume 1 of Opinions rendered by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

_Ricuarp CLay AND Company, L1tp.,
BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK. ©

STi 5 i

* i
§
‘
r 4
ate
SS
4 4 "
4
=
es E
=
e
;
;
7 :
s
‘one:
ay f Tea)
"
ab
4 £
i »
; ; i
Y Aa 6
4 ,
5
.
,
Fj
rs
oe

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2
(pp. 81-88)

OPINION 143

On the method of forming the family name
for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemiptera)

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1943

Price two shillings and sixpence

eo Sea

Issued 25th March, 1943

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).t

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.5.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). j

TTT TTI

er ae on “ _ .
az i § : Fae a ee Se ;
Mo als: sig cake elo ey
a> ; é f “ SS

OPINION 143.

ON THE METHOD OF FORMING THE FAMILY NAME FOR
TINGIS FABRICIUS, 1803 (INSECTA, HEMIPTERA).

SUMMARY.—The family name for Tingis Fabricius, 1803
(Syst. Rhyng. : 124) in the Hemiptera is TINGIDAE.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The question of the form of the family name for Tingis Fabricius,
1803, was first submitted to the Commission by Dr. A. C. Baker
of East Falls Church, Va., in January 1923. The following is the
text of Dr. Baker’s note :—

TINGITIDAE, TINGIDAE or TINGIIDAE.

Dr. W. J. Holland (1922, Science 56 : 334-335) contends that Fabri-
cius intended to use the word Tinge, the Latin equivalent of the Greek word
Tiyyis, Of which the stem is Tingit. He, therefore, makes the family
name TINGITIDAE.

Dr. H. M. Parshley (1922, Science 56: 449) contends that Fabricius
coined the word Tingis and did not base it on the Greek word Tiyys and
following the genitive used by Fabricius he makes the word an i-stem and
writes the family name TINGIDAE.

Dr. Baker (1922, Science 56 : 603) contends that Fabricius introduced
into the Latin language the Greek word Tiyyis and since an i-stem in Greek
made it an i-stem in Latin. Following Article 4 strictly he writes the
family name TINGIIDAE.

Dr. Holland (1922, Science 56 : 535-536) replies to Dr. Parshley objecting
to his stand.

Dr. Parshley (1922, Science 56: 754) accepts Dr. Baker’s conclusion
about the origin of the word but objects to the application of Article 4.
He claims that Dr. Baker introduced this use in such cases.

Dr. Baker informs you of the fact that the word mentioned by Dr.
Parshley, APHIIDAE, has been in the literature for ten years so that others
have followed Article 4 in such cases.

Shall Article 4 be followed ?,

Il_ THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. After preliminary consideration, the Commission decided to
invite the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature to advise them on the merits of the alternatives submitted
in connection with this name.

84 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

3. This case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932
during the Meeting of the Fifth International Congress of En-
tomology. The International Committee adopted the following
Resolution in this matter :—

TINGIDAE versus TINGITIDAE et TINGIIDAE.

Tingis étant un nom latin dont le génitif est Tingis et l’accusatif Tingim,
TINGIDAE est la forme correcte du nom de la famille.

4. This Resolution was unanimously confirmed by Section VIII
of the Fifth International Congress of Entomology and by the
said Congress in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the
Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee.

III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

5. The resolution adopted by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature was considered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of
the Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting
of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meet-
ing, which was held on the morning of Monday, 16th September
1935, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd
Meeting, Conclusion 12) :—

(a) that the form of the family name to be established for the
genus 7ingis Fabricius, 1803 (Syst. Rhyng.: 124) in the
Hemiptera was a question which affected entomologists
alone and in consequence was a matter on which the Com-
mission could properly be guided by the International
Congress of Entomology ;

in view of (a) above, to render an Opinion declaring that
the family name for the genus T7mgis Fabricius, 1803, was
TINGIDAE.

6. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday,
17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17),
Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through
ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had
been charged with the duty of preparing the Report to be submitted
by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 143. 85

Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by
the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3 (b)) he had made a start with the drafting of the
Commission’s Report; that he made considerable progress in
spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of refer-
ence; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to
lay a draft Report before the Commission at their next meeting,
though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to
prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on
which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon meetings of
the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to
above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3 (a) (iii)), he
was therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared
to be the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed
that those matters which it was found impossible to include in
the Report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be
dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the
Official Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their
Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming pro-
posed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the
Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or
not it was found possible to include references to them in the
Report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every
such decision should be treated as having been participated in by
all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The
Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Com-
missioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by
him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items
to be included in their Report to the Twelfth International Con-
gress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the
Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons
explained, it was found impossible to deal in that Report.

7. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available,
to include a reference in the Report submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is
therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the
special procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in
paragraph 6 above.

8. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

86 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters ;; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen wice Apstein.

g. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Meeting.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the Suspension of the Rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence
of at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion neither requires, in order to be
valid, the Suspension of the Rules, nor involves a reversal of any
former Opinion rendered by the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or through
Alternates at the Meeting of the Commission held in Lisbon in
September 1935 :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the
powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of
Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the
said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for
the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be
rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Forty
Three (Opinion 143) of the said Commission.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 143. 87

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twenty-seventh day of January, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION

NOTICES.

ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

The undermentioned publications of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publications Office of the
Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7 :—

OPINION

OPINIONS I-133.

134.

re5.

130.

139.

140.

it Ait

AP,

143.

On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to
species described in his Neuere Bettrage zur
Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858

The suppression of the so-called ‘“‘ Erlangen
List’ ‘of 1801 5

Opinion supplementary fo Opinion 11 on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considéva-
tions génévales sur Vordre naturel des ani-
maux composant les classes des Crustacés,
des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres ee
en familles, Paris, 1810

On the relative precedence to be sceoeden
to certain generic names published in
1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec-
tively for identical genera in the meu
ptera Rhopalocera

On the method by which the anicnamene fs
Article 25 of the International Code
adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the
International Zoological Congress, relat-
ing to the replacement of invalid names,
should be interpreted j ‘

The names Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803],
and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno-
ptera added to the Official List of Generic
Names

On the method of forming the family names
for Mevops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and
for Mevope Newman, 1838 (Insecta)

On the principles to be observed in interpret-
ing Article 4 of the International Code re-
lating to the es of families and sub-
families

Suspension of the Rules fo Sie Latveile
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)

On the method of forming the family name
for Tingis Fabricius, ee oe ie Hemi-
ptera)

price 8d.

price mG.

PLICe Is:

price Is.

price zs:

price 2s.

Price ze.

price 2s.

od.

Od.

6d.

od.

6d.

The bulk of fete are out sf sie and it is accordingly

proposed to reprint them, as soon as funds permit, as Volume 1 of Opinions
venderved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND CompANy, LTD.,

BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE
INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 9)
(pp. 89-98)

OPINION 144

On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy,
1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex
Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
ey 1943 . |

Price two shillings and sixpence

| eee Le
Issued 30th March, 1943 |

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U:S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).7

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :

British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U:S.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION 144.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES CRABRO GEOFFROY,
1762, CRABRO FABRICIUS, 1775, AND CIMBEX OLIVIER, 1790
(INSECTA, HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, is suppressed ; (ii) all existing type designa-
tions for Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbeax Olivier, 1790, are set
aside; (ili) Vespa cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as
the type of Crabro Fabricius; and (iv) Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus,
1758, is hereby designated as the type of Cimbeax Olivier. The
names Crabro Fabricius and Cimbeax Olivier, with the types
indicated above, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

Attention was first drawn by Professor James Chester Bradley
in 1919 (Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 66-67) to the serious diffi-
culties arising from the strict application of the rules in the case
of the names Cvabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex Olivier, 1790.
The difficulties involved in this case led Professor Chester Bradley
to consult the leading systematic workers in all countries on the
course of action to be pursued. As the result of these consulta-
tions, the following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley
and 59 other Hymenopterists was submitted to the International
Commission :—

THE CASE OF CRABRO AND CIMBEX

“In Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 66, Bradley has shown that the valid
name under the code for the genus of the common willow sawfly is Crabro
Geoffr. rather than Cimbex by which it has been universally known, and
as it is the type of its family the CimBIcIDAE must be changed to CRABRo-
NIDAE despite the fact that Cvabro, CRABRONINI, CRABRONINAE and
CRABRONIDAE have been familiar and universally employed terms applied
to groups of sphecoid wasps.

““ There seems to be no question as to the validity of Cvabro Geoffr. under
the Code as interpreted by Opinion 20, but since some Commissioners and
Opinions have recently shown a tendency not to strictly adhere to that
Opinion,* we wish to ask for a specific decision concerning the validity of
Crabro Geoffr., 1762 (nec Fabricius, 1775).

* The question here referred to is at present sub judice. See paragraph
14 of the Report submitted by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to, and approved by, the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology (Compte Rendu XII* Congrés international de Zoologie Lisbonne

1985 : 184-185).
*

Q2 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

‘Tn case you sustain the validity of Cvabro Geoffr. we hereby pray for
relief from the intolerable situation resulting, and respectfully petition you
to invoke the plenary power granted you by the Monaco Congress, and to
take action as follows, to wit :

(1) to suspend the Rules in the cases of

Crabro Geoffr., 1762
Crabro Fabr., 1775

(2) to permanently reject
Crabyo Geoffr., 1762

(3) to validate

Cimbex Ol., 1790, type Tenthvedo lutea L. (by designation of
Latreille, 1810).

Crabro Fabr., 1775, type Crvabro cribrarius i.e. Vespa cribvania L.,
for the genus of aculeate wasps commonly known by that name,
and for the subgenus thereof referred to by Kohl (1915, Die
Crabronen der palaearktischen Region) as Thyreopus.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-

mission :—

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken'* H. Brauns {

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland
ALB; Gahan: * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
EEE risen J. G. Betrem- O. W. Richards
ieulemnatla R. Fouts le le, ISajoiny

H. H. Ross * G. Arnold VSL Bate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha C. Enderlein
Gale pleyvile H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * A. C. Kinsey * O. Vogt +

Ba A lott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl f
A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl R. Kruger +

W. M. Mann R. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F, X. Williams f

H. von Ihering {
A. C. W. Wagner

A. von Schulthess
Rk. P. Benson *

O. Schmiedeknecht +
N. N. Kuznezev-Ugamt-

H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz sky +
H. Bischoff W.V. Baloutf * 1p. 18, Ibionez
L. Masi. D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

i) Deceased.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International

Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and
the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should
be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at
Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recommenda-

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 144. 93

tions of the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature would be available.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

5. This and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were subsequently con-
firmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the
Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

Iil—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published,
had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the
illness of Dr. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken and that, in so far as this involved
taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the
prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with,
the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might
be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and
that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until
aiter the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which
the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals
for publication. The case of Crabro Geoffroy, Crabro Fabricius,
and Cimbex Olivier was one of the cases in question and was

94 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

accordingly dealt with by the Commission at Lisbon under the
above procedure.

7. The present case was considered by the International
Commission at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday,
16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2),
when the Commission agreed * :—

(b) under “‘ Suspension of the Rules” permanently to reject
the following generic names :—

er ye) cqnmiey He cee,

oe, Ser te) ere

(c) under “‘ Suspension of the Rules ”’ to set aside all type
designations for the undermentioned genera and to
declare their types to be the species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus

(19) Cimbex Olivier, 1790, Tenthredo lutea Linnaeus,
Ency. méth. 5 (Ins.) : 1758, Syst. Nats (edaioy:

762 555
(20) Crabro Fabricius, 1775, Vespa cribraria Linnaeus,
Syst. Ent. > 373 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) :
DIS |

(d) under ‘‘ Suspension of the Rules ”’ to place on the Official
List of Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumer-
ated ‘in (c) above (names (19) to (34)), each with the type
species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of
the Report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. This report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint
meeting with the International Commission held on the afternoon
of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology by which it was approved at the
Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon of Satur-
day, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

* Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case are
here quoted.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 144. 95

g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at
Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session, this case was
duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in
the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology held at Monaco in March 1913, by which the said Inter-
national Congress conferred upon the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the Rules
as applied to any given case where in the judgment of the Com-
mission the strict application of the Rules would clearly result in
greater confusion than uniformity. In the period that has
elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed
Suspension of the Rules in the case of the names specified in
paragraph 7 above, no communication of any kind has been
received by the International Commission objecting to the issue
of an Opinion in the terms proposed.

10, The Opinion as set out in paragraph 7 above was concurred
in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the
Lisbon meeting of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

11. [he present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon meeting. Nor since that
Meeting has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the above Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and
Stiles.

1V.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological

96 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
Plenary Power to suspend the Rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said Rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible Suspension of the Rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanim-
ously in favour of the proposed Suspension of the Rules; and

WHEREAS the Suspension of the Rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Meeting

was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion One Hundred
and Forty Four (Opinion 144) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, have signed
the present Opinion.

Done in London, this ninth day of February, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 144. 97

NOTICES.

The undermentioned publications of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature are obtainable at the Publications Office of the
Commission, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7 :-—

OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to
species described in his Neuere Bettrage zur

Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 ; 3 price 8d.
OPINION 135. The suppression of the so-called “‘ Erlangen
TLAge 7 Oil UCOT : : : : : price 8d.

OPINION 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra-
tions génévales suv Vordrve naturel des ani-
maux composant les classes des Crustacés,
des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres Ly a
en familles, Paris, 1810 : : DICE 1S, Ow,

OPINION 137. On the relative precedence to be seeoeded
to certain generic names published in
1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respec-
tively for identical genera in the peu
ptera Rhopalocera ; ICO US, Od.

OPINION 138. On the method by which the eee oe
Article 25 of the International Code
adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the
International Zoological Congress, relat-
ing to the replacement of invalid names,
should be interpreted . A price Is. 6d,

OPINION 139. The names Cephus Latreille, [1 ee Soa,
and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno-
ptera added to the Official List of Generic
Names : ICS 2S, Gd.

OPINION 140. On the method of forming the enh names
for Mevops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and
for Mevope Newman, 1838 (Insecta) 5 DIMOS BS, Od!

OPINION 141. Onthe principles to be observed in interpret-
ing Article 4 of the International Code re-
lating to the Sane of families and sub-

families ‘ , joe 2S, Od).
OPINION 142. Suspension of the ites oe Sis eae
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . : 5 Ores 2S, Gal.

OPINION 143. On the method of forming the family name
for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 ee Hemi-
ptera) 4 : 5 IEICE BS. OU,

OPINION 144. On the status of the. names Craivs Conaeey:
1762, Cvabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex
Olivier joo) Insecta Elyinenoptera)i) 4) price 2s" od:

OPINIONS 1-133. The bulk of these are out of print and it is accordingly
proposed to reprint them, as soon as funds permit, as Volume 1 of Opinions
vendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CLAY AND CoMPANy, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK. | i
wa
i .
’ . )

gam

|} OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
| RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

| Edited by .
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

Vol. 2. Part 12. Pp. 99-108.

On the status of names first published in
works rejected for nomenclatorial purposes
and subsequently published in other works.

|
| OPINION 145
|

LONDON :

| Printed by Order of the International Commission on
ae Zoological Nomenclature
1 .. Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
| 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
; ok 1943

Price two shillings and sixpence

Issued 30th September, 1943

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

’ The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor. Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). —

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.). )
(vacant).* !

Class 1946

Herr Professor ie. Walter ARNDT (Germany).

Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).f

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.).

{| This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

7 . 1 ‘ "a 3 v ry 5
VG G ay
ew CRAG Paks BEY s . y
AY} an erane biWy j f
tr) dg
, é

}

oy,

OPINION 145.

ON THE STATUS OF NAMES FIRST PUBLISHED IN WORKS
REJECTED FOR NOMENCLATORIAL PURPOSES AND SUB- |
SEQUENTLY PUBLISHED IN OTHER WORKS.

SUMMARY.—Where a _work is rejected for nomenclatorial
purposes, either under Article 25 of the International Code or
under the plenary powers granted to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, names (whether generic or specific)
first published in such works are to be treated as having never
been published. Where, therefore, an author subsequently
establishes a genus or species to which he applies the same name
as one of those in the rejected work, the later published name is
available nomenclatorially and is not to be rejected as a homonym
by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the work so
rejected. . |

-I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

At their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935, the Inter-
national Commission had under consideration a proposal that
the long forgotten paper on generic names in the Hymenoptera
commonly known as the “Erlangen List’’ should be suppressed
on the ground that greater confusion than uniformity would -
clearly result if it were necessary to change the meaning to be
attached to the many well-known genera in question by reason of
the change in their type species that would follow inevitably
from the acceptance of this paper.

2. In the course of the discussion of this proposal, attention was
drawn to the need for a clear indication on the status of a name ©
(whether generic or specific) (a) first published in a work subse-
quently rejected for nomenclatorial purposes and (b) later repub-
lished either (1) in some other sense or (ii) in the same sense. The
question was whether a name so republished should be treated
as available nomenclatorially, in view of the rejection of the work
in which it had first been published; or whether, notwithstanding —
the rejection of that work, the name, when subsequently repub-

102 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

lished, should be treated as unavailable nomenclatorially as being
a homonym.

3. It was pointed out that the latter of the two courses indicated
above would amount to the total and permanent exclusion from
availability of every name that was first published in a rejected
work. The result would be the very opposite of what anyone
desired, for instead of enabling rejected works to be consigned to
oblivion, it would make it more important than ever that a close
and detailed study should be made of all such works to make sure
that they did not contain names, the use of which it was desired
to retain. A decision in this sense could not be confined to works
specifically rejected by the International Commission but would
need to apply also to every work rejected under Article 25 as the
work of an author who had not applied the principles of binary
nomenclature. This would be the very negation of the object of
that Article, since it would mean that far from the works of such
authors being excluded from account in nomenclatorial matters,
such works would become of great nomenclatorial importance
since the publication of a generic name in such a work would
suffice to prevent the subsequent acceptance of that name as an
available name in any branch of zoology.

4. But it was not only on grounds of logic that such a decision
would be open to objection; powerful reasons on grounds of
practical convenience pointed to the same conclusion. An
admirable case in point was provided by the “ Erlangen List ”’ at
that moment under consideration by the Commission. The
objection taken to the “ Erlangen List ’’ was not that the names
first published in it were new—but long since forgotten—names,
the reintroduction of which into the literature would displace
well-known names and thereby result in greater confusion than
uniformity. On the contrary, the objection to the “ Erlangen
List ’’ was that it was the work in which were first published many
generic names which in the course of over 100 years had become
some of the best known in the order Hymenoptera; their use in
the “‘ Erlangen List ’’ was different, however, from that which
had come to be universally adopted, and the acceptance of the
“Erlangen List ’’ would involve the changing of the types of
(and consequently also the meaning to be assigned to) many of
these genera. No one desired that these names should be com-
pletely suppressed for all nomenclatorial purposes; what was
desired was that their use in the “ Erlangen List’ should be
suppressed, so as to validate their use in the commonly accepted

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 145. 103

sense, 7.€. in what would be the correct sense if it were permissible
to treat the names in question as having nomenclatorial status
only from the date and place of their next subsequent publication.
5. [he proposal placed before the International Commission
was, therefore, first that the “‘ Erlangen List ’’ should be elimin-
ated from the literature by being suppressed under the Commis-
sion’s plenary powers, and second that the availability of the generic
names first published in that work should be judged as from the
date on which the names in question were first republished and
by reference to the species then placed in the genera in question.
This was not a matter which could be settled in relation to a
particular case, since the same problem inevitably arose whenever
a work was rejected for nomenclatorial purposes. The Com-
mission were accordingly asked to give a decision on this question
in general terms that would ape automatically whenever the
problem arose. |

I1.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

6. The general problem discussed above and also the petition
relating fo the particular case presented by the ‘“‘ Erlangen List ”’
were considered by the International Commission at their meeting
held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935, when the
Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
ee | 3

to render Opinions :—

(i) declaring, under suspension of the rules, that the
so-called “ Erlangen List’ is to be treated as though
it had never been published ;

_ (ii) making it clear that, where any subsequent author
published a genus having the same name as one of the
genera proposed in the “ Erlangen List,’ the later-
published name is not to be rejected as a homonym >
by reason of the earlier publication of that name in the
Po bilancen List) ;

(ii) indicating that the principle laid down in (ii) above

applies generally both where the Commission render
(or have rendered) an Ofimion declaring that a given
work is to be treated as though it had never been
published or where a work is rejected automatically
under Article 25 of the International Code.

I04 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

7. The above matter was dealt with by the Commission in
paragraph 17 of the report which on Wednesday, 18th September
1935, they unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting,
Conclusion 6). On the afternoon of the same day the report of
the Commission was unanimously approved by the Section on
Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Com-
mission. That report was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously
approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the
afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the
Congress. | |

8. The present Opinion 1 was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

g. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Com-
missioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat
by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and
Stiles.

III1.— AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION. |

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the said Commission, that is to say
ten (10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their
votes in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-

1 Of the three items composing the Conclusion quoted in paragraph
6 of the present Opinion, items (i) and (ii) have been dealt with in the

Opinion rendered by the Commission as Opinion 135. The present
Opinion deals therefore only with item (iii).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 145. 105

mission, such proposed Ofinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary
thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of
the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have peated
their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or
through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in

Lisbon in September 1935:
_ Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Forty Five (Opinion 145) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this second day of March, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

106

OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com-
The following Parts have so far been published :—

(contents include a survey of the functions and
powers of the International Commission)
pp. XXV1 s

(report on the financial position of the Interna-
tional Commission and survey of outstanding
tasks) pp. xiv . , :

mission.

PART OT.

PART 2.

OPINION

134.

135.
136.

137.

138.

130.

140.

14.

142.

143.

144.

Opinions Published by the Commission

On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to
the species described in his Neuere Bettrage
ZUy Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858

The suppression of the so-called “‘ eee
List ”’ of 1801

Opinion supplementary to ‘Opinion 11 on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considéva-
tions générales sur Vordre naturel des ant-
maux composant les classes des Crustacés,
des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés
en familles, Paris, 1810

On the relative precedence to be accorded
to certain generic names published in
1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec-
tively for identical genera in the Lepido-
ptera Rhopalocera ;

On the method by which the amendment to
Article 25 of the International Code
adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the
International Zoological Congress, relat-
ing to the replacement of invalid names,
should be interpreted .

The names Cephus Latreille, [r 802-1 803],
and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno-
ptera added to the Official List of Generic
Names

On the method of forming the family names
for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and
for Merope Newman 1838 (Insecta) é

On the principles to be observed in interpret-
ing Article 4 of the International Code re-
lating to the naming of families and sub-
families

Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille,
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 4

On the method of forming the family name
for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemi-
ptera) :

On the status of the names Crabyo Geoffroy,
1762, Crabyo Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex
Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera)

price 9s.

price 5S,

od.

price 8d.

price Is.

price 2s.
price 2s.
price 2s.
price 2s.
price 2s.

price 2s.

od.

6d.

od.

6d.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I45. 107

OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in
works rejected for nomenclatorial pur-
poses and subsequently published in

other works 3) Price 255 Od.
OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius,
1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . 3 Sa pLICe 254 .0q-

OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Article 34 of the International
Code in relation to the rejection, as
homonyms, of generic and subgeneric
names of the same origin and meaning as
_ lames previously published . é y uplice 2s) as

Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published

OPINIon 148. On the principles to be observed in inter-

preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna-
tional Code in relation to the availability
of generic names proposed as emendations
of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic

: names of the same origin and meaning.

OPINION 149. ‘Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In-
secta) added to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology

OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several
portions of Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss
bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816-[1826].

OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer,
[1801-1802], Podahrius Latreille, 1802,
Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] and
Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta,

fe Hymenoptera).

OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the
Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in
1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle

Classification des Mouches a deux ailes.

OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille,
[1802-1803], and Dyryinus Latreille,
[1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera
Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853
(Insecta, Orthoptera).

OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome
Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille,
1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In-
secta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri-
cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera).

OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta)
added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus,
1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera).

All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of the
Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their
Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.

108 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK —

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most
gratefully received. ‘They should be addressed to the Commission
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made
payable to the *‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature ’’ and crossed *‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

| Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

Vol. 2. Part 13. Pp. 109-121.

OPINION 146

Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius,
1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera)

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1943

Price two shillings and sixpence

Issued 30th September, 1943

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.5S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943 E
Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil). HA
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy). i
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.).
(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).f

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia). ;
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission). *
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). —
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :.
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.). :
+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). bs

OPINION 146.

‘SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR COLIAS FABRICIUS,
1807 (INSECTA, LEPIDOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio hyale
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Colias Fabricius,
1807, and that name, so defined, is hereby added to the Official

List of Generic Names in Zoology.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission ina
letter dated 23rd February 1934, in which the Council of the
Royal Entomological Society of London drew attention to the:
conclusions reached by the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee? of the
Society’s Committee on Generic Nomenclature,? regarding the
generic names of certain of the British Lepidoptera,? as respects to
which both the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee and the Committee on
Generic Nomenclature were of the opinion that the strict applica-
tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity. The Society enclosed a copy of the Report of the
Lepidoptera Sub-Committee (published that day as Part 2 of the
Generic Names of British Insects), to which was attached a
paper by Commissioner Francis Hemming, in which was given a
full statement in regard to each of the names in question. One of
these names was Colas Fabricius, 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk.
(Illiger) 6 : 284).

2. The following is an extract from the paper referred ‘to above
of the passage relating to this genus :—

1 This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis
Hemming (Chairman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams.

_ * This Committee was then composed as follows:—Sir Guy Marshall
(Chaiyman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. O. W. Richards,
Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary).

3 The other genera referred to in this communication were Argynnis
Fabricius, 1807, Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, and Styymon Hiibner, 1818.
For the decisions of the International Commission on these cases, see

Opinions 156 (Vanessa Fabricius), 161 (Avgynnis Fabricius), and 165
(Stvymon Hiibner). |

II2 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

COLIAS Fabricius

Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 284
Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Ins. : 440
Swainson, 1820, Zool. Iilustr. (1) 1: pl. 5

Curtis, 1829, Brit. Entom. 6: pl. 242

Butler, 1870, Cist. ent. 1: 43

Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sct. 1871 3 59

Latreille (1810) fixed the type of this genus (which he called by the
French and Latin names “‘ Coliade’’ and Colias) as Colias rhamni Fab.
(i.e. Papilio rhamni Linn.), which was one of the original species given by
Fabricius. ‘The next author to fix a type for this genus was Swainson, who
in 1820 specified Papilio eubule Linn. (which he mis-spelt ebule). This
selection could in no circumstances be valid, as Papilio eubule Linn. was
not one of the five species given by Fabricius in 1807. In 1829, Curtis
specified Papilio hyale Linn. as the type. This is one of Fabricius’s
original species, and its selection as the type would be perfectly valid, were
it not for Latreille’s action in 1810 in selecting Papilio rhamni Linn. as the
type. Later, Butler (1870) and Scudder (1872) selected Papilio palaeno
Linn. asthetype. This selection would be invalid owing to Curtis’s action,
quite apart from that of Latreille.

The name Colias Fab. has been universally used throughout its history
for the ‘‘ Clouded Yellows’’ of English, and the “‘Sulphurs’’ of American,
lepidopterists (i.e. for Papilio hyale Linn. and its congeners) and except for
the few species described in the eighteenth century under the name Papilio
Linn. every species of ‘‘Clouded Yellow’’, European and American alike,
has been described under the name Colias Fab. Strict adherence to the
provisions of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature would,
however, remove the name Colias Fab. from these species and would trans-
fer it to Papilio rhamni Linn. and its congeners. This transfer would be
highly inexpedient, as Papilio yhamni Linn. has been universally assigned
for over a century to Gonepteryx Leach, which would fall as a synonym of
Colias Fab. Noris this the only inconvenience attaching to such a transfer,
as if the ‘‘ Clouded Yellows’’ were deprived of the name Colias Fab.} there
is no generic name to which they could be unequivocally assigned, and for
this reason. The next name which might be allotted to them is Zervene
Hiibn. The type of that genus is Papilio cesonia Stoll, 1790, which in 1863
Reakirt separated generically from Papilio hyale Linn. and the other
‘Clouded Yellows’’ under the name Megonostoma. Since that date, most
American lepidopterists have accepted Reakirt’s view that the two groups
are generically distinct from one another. The question is, however, by
no means clear. Thus, Godman and Salvin (1889, Biol. Cent.-Amer. Lep.-
Rhop. 2: 151) gave their reasons for considering that there were no struc-
tural characters by which Papilio cesonia Stoll could be separated from the
“Clouded Yellows’’ which they assigned to Colias Fab. More recently,
Klots (1931, Ent. News 42 : 255) has expressed the opinion that, at most,
Zevene Hiibn. (type Papilio cesonia Stoll) can only be separated in a
subgeneric sense from the ‘‘ Clouded Yellows’’. Though he realised that by
the strict letter of the Code Colias Fab. was not available for the ‘‘ Clouded
Yellows’’, he took the view that it was undesirable to disturb the long-
established usage of this name and decided to apply it to those species.

Other American lepidopterists (e.g. Barnes and Benjamin, 1926,
Bull. S. Calif. Acad. Sci. 25: 8) have applied the name Eurymus Horsf.,
1829, (which some authors have wrongly attributed to Swainson) to
Papilio hyale Linn. and the other ‘‘Clouded Yellows’’. Holland has,
however, pointed out (1930, Ann. Carnegie Mus. 19: 198, 200) that this
name cannot possibly be employed for these species as it is a homonym of
Eurymus Rafinesque, 1815. Those entomologists who (a) accept Papilio
vhamni Linn. as the type of Colias Fab. and (b) regard Papilio cesonia

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. II3

. Stoll as generically distinct from Papilio hyale Linn. are driven to use the
name Scalidoneuva Butler, 1871 (type Scalidoneuva hermina Butler, 1871,
a species discovered in eastern Peru) for Papilio hyale Linn. and the other
“« Clouded Yellows ’’.

For the reasons given above, the strict application to Colias Fab. of
the rules laid down in the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature
would, in my opinion, produce a state of confusion of the very type which
the International Zoological Congress had in mind when they invested the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature with plenary
powers to suspend the rules in cases where their strict application would
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.

3. The paper from which the foreging passage is an extract
concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee
would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature
of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it was highly
desirable that in the exercise of their plenary powers the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon
as possible render an Opinion to the following effect :—

Opinion 11 regarding the designation of genotypes by Latreille, 1810,
shall not be interpreted to mean that in the work referred to in that Opinion
Latreille designated Papilio rhammi Linn., 1758, as the type of Colias
Fab. Consequently, the fixation by Curtis in 1829 of Papilio hyale Linn.,

1758, as the type of that genus is valid and the name Colzas Fab. as thus
defined is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names.

These conclusions were concurred in by the Lepidoptera Sub-
Committee by whom they were submitted to the Committee on
Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed the view of the
Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of the Society to
approach the International Commission in the sense indicated
above. It was in accordance with this recommendation that the
Council addressed to the Commission the letter referred to in
paragraph 1 above.

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

4. Before the Commission had time to take any action on this
case, they received a letter on the same subject (dated 17th May
1934) from Dr. J. Mc. Dunnough, Chief of the Division of Systematic
Entomology, Entomological Branch, Department of Agriculture,
Ottawa, from which the following is an extract :—

I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the
current number of the ‘‘ Canadian Entomologist’’. You will see by this
that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the
fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I

am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in
favour of such procedure. .. .

II4 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

The following is an extract from the note referred to above :—

ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES
(Lepid. : Rhopalocera)

To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic
and Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the ‘‘ Generic
Names of British Rhopalocera’’ will prove of great interest. This pamphlet
has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the Committee
on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London,
and includes full details regarding type fixation and synonymy. Appended
to the list is the first report of the Lepidoptera Sub-committee to the main
committee, and following Mr. Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of
the Law of Priority in four cases is advocated by this sub-committee, the
ground being that strict application of the rules would cause serious, and
quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice.

The genera involved, with their proposed genotypes, are as follows *:

Palen Cisse Colias Fabr. (P. hyale Linn.).

Welcoming any action that would assist in stabilizing generic Nomen-
clature, the undersigned lepidopterists express their full agreement with
the recommendations of the above sub-committee and would urge the
adoption of this report.

J. Mc. Dunnough, Entom, Br., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada.
May 15, 1934.

Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934.

John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles,
Calif. Apr. 26, 1934.

Wm. T. M. Forbes, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y. Apr.

17, 1934.
Roswell C. Williams, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, 19th & Race Sts., Phila-
\ delphia, Pa. Apr. 17, 1934.
E. Irving Huntington, 155 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. April 21, 1934.
Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934.
Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist., N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934.
Cry He Curran, Amer: Mus, Nat. buist., INSY: City. Apr 22 mean
Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934.
Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr.
24, 1934.

5. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Inter-
national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report
on the present application. This case was accordingly considered
by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid
in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth Interna-
tional Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the
Committee agreed to recommend that the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature should take such action
under their plenary powers as might be necessary to secure that
the type of Colas Fabricius, 1807, should be Papilio hyale Lin-
naeus, 1758.

4 For the names of the other genera referred to in this communication,
see footnote 3.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. Slee

6. This, and other, recommendations adopted by the Inter-
national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their
Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Con-
gress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th
September 1935.

-IiI.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION,

7. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in-
volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of
some of which advertisements had not been published or, if
published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing
to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or
for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided
at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g) that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which
a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the
Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to
such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases
in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be prac-
ticable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no
Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said
advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for
publication. The case of the genus Colias Fabricius, 1807, was
one of the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the
Commission at Lisbon under the above procedure.

8. This case was considered by the International Commission
later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session,
2nd Meeting, Gonclusion 22), when the Commission agreed ° :—

5 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which relate to the present case

are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see, 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencel. 1: 20-23.

116 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(a) to “‘ suspend the rules ” in the case of the following generic
names :— |

6: 284;

(h) to declare that the type of Colias Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f.
Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 284, 1s Papilio hyale Linnaeus,
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 460;

(i) to add the generic names . . . Colas Fabricius, 1807,
to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types
indicated above;

g. The foregoing decisions in regard to the name Colias Fabricius
were embodied in paragraph 28 of the report which at their meeting
held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) the Commission unanimously
agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology.
That report was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomen-
clature at its joint meeting with the International Commission
held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon sub-
mitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which
it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium
Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935,
the last day of the Congress.

10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
7 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more
of the journals named in the Resolution ® adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application |
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-—
formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed

6 For the text of this Resolution, see Declaration 5. ie

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. II7

to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opinion in the terms proposed.

11. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; | Pellegrin ;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates : a Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima. vice Esaki:

bradley, vice Stone; » Beier vice Blandi, Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did |
not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and
Stiles.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution con-
ferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary
power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where, in
the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the said
rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity,
provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in
two or more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and
provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in
favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and ~

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible
suspension of the rules as applied to the present case has been
given to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution

118 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
Meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Forty Six (Opinion 146) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this third day of March, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

‘

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 146.

11g

The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com-
The following Parts have so far been published :—

mission.

PART I.

PaRT 2.

OPINION

OPINION
OPINION
OPINION
OPINION

OPINION

(contents include a survey of the functions and
powers of the International Commission)
pp. XXvi :

(report on the financial position of the Interna-
tional Commission and survey of outstanding
tasks) pp. xlv . . ‘

134.

135.
136.

137,

138.

139.

140.

141.

142.

143.

144.

Opinions Published by the Commission

On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to
the species described in his Neuere Beitrage
zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858

The suppression of the so-called “ ae
List ”’ of 1801

Opinion supplementary to Opinion rr on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra-
tions génévales suv Vordve naturel des ani-
maux composant les classes des Crustacés,
des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés
en familles, Paris, 1810

On the relative precedence to be accorded
to certain generic names published in
1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec-
tively for identical genera in the Lepido-
ptera Rhopalocera i

The names Cephus Latreille, [1 802—1 803],
and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno-
ptera added to the Official List of Generic
Names

On the method of forming the family - names
for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and
for Mevope Newman 1838 (Insecta) ‘

On the principles to be observed in interpret-
ing Article 4 of the International Code re-
lating to the naming of families and sub-
families

Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille,
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) .

On the method of forming the family name
for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemi-
ptera) é

On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy,
1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex
Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera)

price 9s.

price 5s.

od.

price 8d.

price Is

price Is.

JOGOS, 5S

price 2s.

plice 2s.

price 2s.

DHS AS.

Price) 2s.

price 2s.

. od.

6d.

od.

6d.

I20 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in
works rejected for nomenclatorial pur-
poses and subsequently. published in

other works - price 2s. 6d.
OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius,
1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . i, (price, Zswode

OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in “inter-
preting Article 34 of the International
Code in relation to the rejection, as
homonyms, of generic and subgeneric
names of the same origin and meaning as .
names previously published . é «= price 25560:

Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published

OPINION 148. On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna-
tional Code in relation to the availability
of generic names proposed as emenda-
tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier
generic names of the same origin and
meaning.

OPINION 149. . Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In- ©
secta) .added to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several
portions of Htibner (J.), Verzeichniss
bekannter Schmetilinge [sic], 1816-[1826].

OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer,
[1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802,
Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] and
Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera).

OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the
Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in
1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle
Classification des Mouches a deux ailes.

OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille,
[1802-1803], and Dyryinus Latreille,

[1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera
Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853
(Insecta, Orthoptera).

OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome
Spinola, 1811, Muisocampe Latreille,
1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In-
secta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri-
cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera).

OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta)
added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus,
1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera).

All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of
the Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their
Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 146. I21I

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

i
‘
S

; } P fie fs ae
rs ; 4 g 4 ers i mC F Dfne Le +

2 . a! 4 < \ y u y

ease ‘
’
‘ :
. t 1

* r
oe Fiz nu t f
¢ ‘y
t
Oe UY
is “4% .
. - rn
=e
ee te
e rat ae
at R f .
re » ) : Ld a
s , \ A
vw
reed
TE Dea Bae tS aa ay
a ' : ME hp Pe ea ARM
' ELLE) eet FO RI My) 0 Or a = en A
a “* Dy ey Pit NG he ae Lirewd hie

Pont

BON ost i 4 det WER aa Ss Bae
BM YESH CBN ISTO NS A aia ge

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

Vol. 2. Part 14. Pp. 123-132.

OPINION 147

On the principles to be observed in interpreting

Article 34 of the International Code in relation

to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic and

subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning
as names previously published

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1943
Price two shillings and sixpence

issued 30th September, 1943

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON |
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE |

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom). .
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J: R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).f

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd eye 1939, of Dr,
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th yaneaes 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION 147

- ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING
ARTICLE 34 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION
TO THE REJECTION, AS HOMONYMS, OF GENERIC AND
SUBGENERIC NAMES OF THE SAME ORIGIN AND MEANING
AS NAMES PREVIOUSLY PUBLISHED.

~ SUMMARY.—tThe following principles are to be observed in
interpreting Article 34 of the International Code relating to the
rejection, as homonyms, of generic and subgenerie names of the
same origin and meaning :—

(1) a generic name of the same origin and meaning as a pre-
viously published generic name is to be rejected as a homo-
nym of the said name if it is distinguished therefrom only
by the following differences :—

(a) the use of *‘ ae ’’, “‘ oe ’’, and “‘e’’ ; the use of “‘ ei ’’,
*“*7’, and “‘y ’’ $ or the use of “‘c’’ and “‘k’”’ ;

(b) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant ;

(ec) the presence or absence of a ‘‘c”’ before a “‘t’’ ;

(d) the use of a single or double consonant ;

_ (2) the prineiples set out in (1) above in regard to generic names
apply equally to subgeneric names.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

‘This question was first brought forward by Commissioner
Francis Hemming, who in 1935 submitted the following statement
thereon to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature at their Session held’ at Lisbon during the Twelfth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology :—

On the conditions in which generic (and subgeneric) names should be rejected

as homonyms of earlier generic (and subgeneric) names of the same
origin and meaning

in preparing my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies (published
last year 1) I was seriously embarrassed on a number of occasions by the
fact that the International Code does not contain any express definition of

1 This work was published by the Trustees of the British Museum
peal History) on 28th July 1934.

126 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the term ‘‘homonym”’ in relation 'to the rejection, as homonyms, of generic
and subgeneric names of the same origin and meaning (Article 34), although
there is such a definition in relation to specific and subspecific names in
Article 35.

The definition given in Article 35 reads as follows :—

‘« Specific names of the same origin and meaning shall be considered
homonyms if they are distinguished from each other only by the
following differences :

(a) the use of ‘ae’, oe’, and ‘e€% as caevuleus comics
ceyvuleus; “el’; 1’ and “vy, as ‘chivopus.\cheivopus a en
and ‘ k’ as microdon, mikrodon.

(b) the aspiration or non-aspiration of a consonant, as oxry-
vyncus, o#yrhynchus.

(d) by a single or double consonant; litovalis, littovalis.

(e) by the endings ‘ esis’ and ‘ zensis’ to a geographical name,
as timorensis, tumoriensis.”’

I have always assumed that the fact that the above provision was
inserted in Article 35 (specific and subspecific names) without any corre-
sponding provision being inserted in Article 34 (generic and subgeneric
names) was due to the fact that, when at Graz in 1910 the passage quoted
above was added to Article 35 by the Eighth International Congress of
Zoology, on the recommendation of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, both bodies were addressing themselves only to
the problem as it arose in connection with specific (and subspecific) names
and did not consider it necessary on that occasion to carry through to their
logical conclusion, as regards generic (and subgeneric) names, the decision
then taken in regard to specific (and subspecific) names. Ihave therefore
proceeded on the assumption that mutatis mutandis the Graz decision in
regard to Article 35 must be held to apply equally to Article 34.

I am particularly glad therefore to find confirmation of the correctness
of this view in the discussion in the draft Opinion 7 now before the Commis-
sion in regard to the name Uvothoe Dana, where the principle of analogy is
invoked in favour of the proposition that a principle laid down in the Code
in relation to the types of genera (Article 30) should, in the absence of
express provision to the contrary, be held to apply also to the types of
families (Article 4).°

In view, however, of the doubt entertained in some quarters as to the
correct course to be followed in determining whether a given generic name
should or should not be deemed to be a homonym of a previously published
generic name that is similar but not identical therewith, I consider it very
important that the Commission should now give an express ruling on
this subject. No new question of principle is involved, since all that is
required to settle this question is that the Commission should agree to
render an Opinion applying to generic (and subgeneric) names in relation
to Article 34 the principles already expressly laid down in the Code (Article
35) in relation to specific names, so far as those principles are applicable to
nouns (which all generic (and subgeneric) names must be (Article 8)).

I accordingly invite the Commission to agree to apply to generic names
the first four of the principles (principles (a) to (d)) laid down in relation to
specific names in the concluding portion of Article 35 of the Code, but to
exclude the fifth of those principles (principle (e)), since that principle,
being applicable only to specific names of adjectival form, is wholly in-
applicable to nouns and therefore to generic names.

4 See Opinion 133:
3 See Opinion 141.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 147. 127

IIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

2. This question was considered by the International Com-
mission at their meeting held at Lisbon on Tuesday, 17th Sep-
tember 1935, when in the course of discussion it was explained that
the Commission had hitherto held the view that it would naturally
be concluded by zoologists that the principles laid down for specific
names in this matter applied also to generic names. In view,
however, of the fact that it was now clear that the present position
was liable to give rise to misunderstandings, the Commission
agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14) :—

to render an Opinion making it clear that the principles
lettered (a) to (d) in Article 35 of the International Code for
determining whether a given specific (or subspecific) name is
a homonym of another specific (or subspecific) name of
earlier date that is of the same origin and meaning, apply
equally to the determination under Article 34 of the question
whether a given generic (or subgeneric) name is a homonym
of another generic (or subgeneric) name of earlier date,
where the two generic (or subgeneric) names are of the same
origin and meaning.

3. At the same meeting as that at which the foregoing decision
was taken (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Com-
missioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-
health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been
charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted
by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by
the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3 (b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the
Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in
spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ;
and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to laya
draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though
in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare
the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which
- decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the
Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3 (a) (iii)), he was there-
fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the
more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those

128 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

matters which it was found impossible to include in the report,
owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with
after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record
of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session.
For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all
matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session
should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found
possible to include references to them in the report to be sub-
mitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision
should be treated as having been participated in by all the Com-
missioners and Alternates present at’ Lisbon. The Commission
took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner
Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as
recorded above, in regard to the selection of items to be included
in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology
. and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard
to those matters with which, for the reasons explained, it was
found impossible to deal in that report.

4. The question dealt with in the present Opinion - was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available,
to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission
to the [Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It
is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under
the procedure agreed upon be the Commission as set out in
paragraph 3 above.

5. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch ; Arndt VICE
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

6. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5)
Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented —
thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and
Stiles.

COMMISSION ON. ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 147. 129

III.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
| _ OPINION.

- WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provided that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided. that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary there-
of, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the
rules, nor involves a reversal of any former ek rendered by
the Commission ; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or
through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held. in
Lisbon in September 1935 :

NOW, THEREFORE,

_I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said
Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Forty Seven (Opinion 147) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this tenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

130 OPINIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION
Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com-
mission. The following Parts have so far been published :—

Part 1. (contents include a survey of the functions and

powers of the International Commission)

pp. Xxvi : price gs. od.
PART 2, (report on the financial position of the Interna-

tional Commission and survey of Beare

tasks) pp. xiv . ; : : : price 5s. od.

Opinions Published by the Commission

OPINION 134. On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to
the species described in his Neuere Beitrage

zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858 3 price 8d.
OPINION 135. The suppression of the so-called “ ue
List ”’ of 1801 : price 8d.

OPINION 136. Opinion supplementary to Opinion 11 on the

interpretation of Latreille’s Considéra-

tions génévales sur Vordre naturel des ant-

maux composant les classes des Crustacés,

des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un

tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés

en familles, Paris, 1810 price Is. od.
OPINION 137. On the relative precedence to be accorded

to certain generic names published in

1807 by Fabricius and Hubner respec-

tively for identical genera in the Lepido-

ptera Rhopalocera : price 1s. 6d.
OPINION 138. On the method by which the amendment to

Article 25 of the International Code

adopted at the Budapest Meeting of the

International Zoological Congress, relat-

ing to the replacement of invalid names,

should be interpreted . price ts. 6d.
OPINION 139. The names Cephus Latreille, [r802— 1803],

and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno-

ptera added to the Official List of Generic

Names price 2s. 6d.
OPINION 140. On the method of forming the family names

for Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and

for Merope Newman 1838 (Insecta) . | price’2s0d-
OPINION 141. On the principles to be observed in interpret-

ing Article 4 of the International Code re-

lating to the naming of families and sub-

families : price 25. 6d:
OPINION 142. Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille,
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . price 2s. 6d.

OPINION 143. On the method of forming the family name

for Tingis Fabricius, Lees (Insecta, Hemi-

ptera) : price 2s. 6d.
OPINION 144. On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy,

1762, Cvabvo Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex

Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera) . pHcezs od:

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION TA io ee

OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in
works rejected for nomenclatorial pur-
poses and subsequently published in

other works 7) PRICE! 255 0d.
OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius,
1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . . price 2s. 6d.

OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in “inter-
preting Article 34 of the International
Code im relation to the rejection, as
homonyms, of generic and subgeneric
names of the same origin and meaning as
names previously published . ; a) Pkicel sod:

Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published.

Opinion 148. On the principles to be observed in inter-
preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna-
tional Code in relation to the availability
of generic names proposed as emenda-
tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier |
generic names of the same origin and
meaning.

OPINION 149. Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In-
secta) added to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several
portions of Hubner (J.), Verzeichniss
bekannter Schmetilinge [sic], 1816—-[1826].

OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer,
[1801-1802], Podalivius Latreille, 1802,/
Lasius Fabricius, *[1804-1805] and
Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera).

OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the
Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in
1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle
Classification des Mouches a deux atles.

OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille,
[1802-1803], and Dyvyinus Latreille,
[1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneroptera
Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber,
1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera).

OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome
Spinola, 1811, Muisocampe Latreille,
1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In-
secta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri-
cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera).

OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta)
added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology. :

OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus,
1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera).

All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of
the Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their
Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

I32 INTERNATIONAL. COMMISSION ON .ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of.
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature, —

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most
gratefully received. They. should be addressed to the Commission
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made
payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

A
9

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part. 15. Pp. 133-144.

OPINION 148

On the principles to be observed in interpreting

Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in

relation to the availability of generic names

proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes

for, earlier generic names of the same origin
and meaning ™

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1943

Price two shillings and sixpence

ELE ET TE Oe Fe EE EE RO EE SE Ws
Issued 26th October, 1943 .

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). 1am

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.S.A.).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Hert Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).

Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, SW. 7;

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, t941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION 148.

_ ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING

ARTICLES 25 AND 34 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN
RELATION TO THE AVAILABILITY OF GENERIC NAMES
PROPOSED AS EMENDATIONS OF, OR AS SUBSTITUTES FOR,
EARLIER GENERIC NAMES OF THE SAME ORIGIN AND
MEANING.

SUMMARY.—The following principles are to be observed in
interpreting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in relation
to the availability of generic names proposed as emendations of, or
as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same origin and
meaning :—

(1) A generic name published as an emendation of an earlier
name of the same origin and meaning is to be rejected as a
synonym of the earlier name, and the type of the genus
bearing the emended name is automatically the same species
as the type of the genus bearing the earlier name so proposed
to be emended. Example: Achatinus de Montfort, 1810,
being an emendation of Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is to be
rejected as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck ; the type of
Achatinus de Montfort is automatically the same species as
the type of Achatina Lamarck.

(2) A generic name is to be rejected as a homonym if it has

previously been published as an emendation of another

generic name of earlierdate. Example: Borus Albers, 1850

(Mollusca) is to be rejected as a homonym of Borus Agassiz,

1846, an emendation of Boros Herbst, 1797 (Coleoptera).

A generic name published as a substitute (nomen novum)

for a name rejected by reason of its being a homonym is not

_ Itself to be rejected on the ground that it is of the same

origin and meaning as the name for which it has been
proposed as a substitute. Example: Protodryas Reuss,
1928, was published as a substitute for Prodryas Reuss, 1926,
whieh is invalid, as it is a homonym of Prodryas Scudder,
1878 ; as such, Protodryas Reuss is available, although it is
of the same origin and meaning as Prodryas Reuss. If,
however, Protodryas Reuss had been published as an emenda-

—

136 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

tion of Prodryas Reuss (instead of as a substitute), it would
have been a synonym of Prodryas Reuss and therefore not
available.

(4) The principles set out in (1) to (3) above in regard to generic
names apply equally to subgenerie names.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This question was raised at Lisbon by Commissioner Francis
Hemming during the discussion, at the meeting of the Inter-
national Commission held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 14), of the question of
the applicability to Article 34 in respect of generic names of the
principles laid down in Article 35 in respect of specific names of
the same origin and meaning.! The following is the statement
then submitted by Commissioner Hemming :—

The position of generic names proposed as emendations of, or as substitutes
for, earlier generic names of the same origin and meaning.

The decision just taken! by the Commission to make it clear that the
principles laid down in the concluding portion of Article 35 of the Inter-
national Code for determining whether a given specific name is a homonym
of an earlier specific name of the same origin and meaning apply equally
to the determination under Article 34 of corresponding problems when
these arise in connection with generic names, removes most of the difficul-
ties which have long embarrassed systematists when attempting to ascertain
which of the generic names in their group are available nomenclatorially.

There remains, however, one allied problem which is in urgent need of
clarification, namely the status to. be accorded to a name published as an
emendation of an earlier generic name of the same origin and meaning.
The most common type of case in this class is where an author publishes
the generic name “ X-us’’ and this name is later emended to “ X-a” or
vice versa. I was myself confronted with this problem when during the
preparation of my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies (published in
1934) I came to consider the names Argyveus Scopoli, 1777 (Iniry. Hist.
nat. : 431) and its emendation Argyvea Billberg, 1820 (Enum. Ins. : 77).
Attempts have been made in the past to argue that differences such as
alone distinguish the names just referred to are differences only of gender
and therefore that the two generic names are identical; but this particular
line of approach is clearly unsound since in Latin it is only adjectives that
are subject to changes in their terminations according to the gender of the
nouns with which they are in agreement and Article 8 expressly provides
that generic names are to be treated as nouns in the nominative singular.’

1 See Opinion 147.

* In the French text of the Code Article 8 states that a generic name
must be a single word ‘‘ employé comme substantif au nominatif singulier’”’.
The corresponding words in the English text are “‘ employed as a sub-
stantive in the nominative singular’’. Since in any case of doubt the
French text is the substantive text and the other texts are to be treated
as translations (1897, Bull. Soc. zool. France 22: 173), the word “ substan-
tive ’’ in the English text of Article 8 must be treated as a translation of the
French word “ substantif’’. As a translation, it is defective and the word
that should have been used is the word ‘‘ noun’’.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 148. 137

Similarly, the concluding portion of Article 35 (in regard to specific names)
threw no light on the treatment to be accorded to generic names that differed
from one another only in this limited way, since the agreement of specific
names, when of adjectival form, with the noun representing the generic
name is dealt with in Article 14, which contains no provisions covering the
present problem. At-that time, therefore, I felt bound to treat Avgyvea
Billberg as an entity distinct from Argyveus Scopoli, and, as no type had so
far been designated for Argyvea Billberg, I myself then selected one of
Billberg’s originally included species for this purpose (1933, Entomologist
66: 197).

Sinai only later—and then quite by accident—that I discovered that
the Commission had settled the principles to be observed in a case of this
kind, when in Opinion 120 they had given their decision in regard to the
status of Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, an emendation of Achatina Lamarck,
1799 (Mollusca). The decision then taken was announced in the following
terms :— /

“ Achatinus, 1810, is emendation of and therefore objective
synonym of Achatina, 1799; the designation of zebva as type of -
Achatinus contravenes Article 30a andc. Achatinus, 1810, invalidates
any later use of Achatinus in a different sense.”

Quite recently the Commission have re-affirmed these principles in an
Opinion at present awaiting publication,®? the summary of which reads as
follows :—

“ Borus Agassiz, 1846, is an emendation of, and therefore an
absolute synonym of, Boros Herbst, 1797; Borus Albers, 1850, is a
dead homonym.”’

The attitude of the Commission in this matter is perfectly clear from
these Opinions. Unfortunately, however, their decision on this important
question has been almost completely overlooked through the fact that the
Commission did not devote a special Opinion to the statement of their
decision as a matter of principle applying to names throughout the animal
kingdom, but only stated this principle incidentally in the course of an
Opimion (Opinion 120) relating to certain disputed names in a single group
(Mollusca), an Opinion not likely to be studied in detail by any but special-
ists in Mollusca.

The request that I now make to the Commission is that they should
agree to render an Opinion stating in general terms the important decision
that they reached on this matter nearly five years ago (January 1931) but
which so far has been presented in an inaccessible form in an Opinion
concerned only with the case of a particular pair of names.

I hope that at the same time the Commission will make it clear that tha
decision relates only to generic names that are emendations of generic
names and does not apply to names expressly published as substitute names
(nomina nova) for names that are unavailable by reason of being homonyms.
I have no reason to doubt that this was the intention of the Commission,
but it is important that it should be expressly stated, since there are many
substitute names in ‘common use that are of the same origin and meaning
as the names which they replaced, and which, if they had been published
as emendations of, instead of as substitutes for, the names in question
would, under the rule stated in Opinion 120, become invalid synonyms and
themselves require to be replaced by still other names. An example of
this class is provided by the names Protodryas Reuss, 1928 “‘ gen. nov.”’
(Int. ent. Z. 22: 146) and Prodryas Reuss, 1926 (Deuts. ent. Z. 1926 (1) :
66) in the same group of the NyMPHALIDAE as the genera already referred

3 See Opinion 125.

138 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

to (Arvgyveus Scopoli and Argyrea Billberg). Pvodvyas Reuss is invalid as it
is a homonym of Prodryas Scudder, 1878 (Bull. U.S. Geol. geogy. Survey
4: 520); it was therefore replaced by the substitute name Protodryas
Reuss. As a substitute name, Pvotodryas Reuss is available; but, if it
had been published as an emendation of Pvodryas Reuss (instead of as a
substitute for that name) it would, under Opinion 120, have become a
synonym of Pyvodvyas Reuss and therefore unavailable nomenclatorially.

II.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

2. On the general issue involved the Commission was unani-
mously of the view that, when the Commission reached a decision —
on a question of interest to the general body of zoologists, it was
of the greatest importance that that decision should be presented
in such a way to ensure that it was most readily available to all
concerned. In the particular case raised by Commissioner
Hemming, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting,
Conclusion 15) :— | : |

to render an Ofimion restating in general terms the decision
embodied in Opinion 120 in regard to the status of a generic
or subgeneric name published as an emendation of an earlier
generic or subgeneric name of the same origin and meaning,
and making it clear that that decision did not apply to a
name expressly published as a substitute name (nomen
novum), even when that name was of the same origin and
meaning as the name replaced.

3. At the same meeting as that at which the foregoing decision
was taken (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Com-
missioner Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of
Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged
with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the
Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology,
reported that, in accordance with the request made by the Com:
mission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Con-
clusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the Com-
mission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in
spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ;
and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a
draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though
in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare
the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which
decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the
Commission, As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 148. 139

(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(ii)), he was there-
fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the
more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those
matters which it was found impossible to include in the report,
owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with
after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record
of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session.
For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all
matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session
should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found
possible to include references to them in the report to be submitted
to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be
treated as having been participated in by all the Commissioners
and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of,
and approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and
adopted the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in
regard to the selection of items to be included in their report to
the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the pro-
cedure to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters
with which, for the reasons explained, it was found me to
dealin that report.

_4. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time avail-
able, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Com-
mission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at
Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt
with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission set out
in paragraph 3 above.

5. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :— |

Commissioners :—Calman : Hemming ; Jordan; » Pellegrin ;
pebers; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Easki; Brad-
ley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice Richter ;
and Mortensen vice Apstein.

5. The present Ofinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Com-
missioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat
by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

I40 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

III.—AUTHORITY ‘FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on..
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary there-
of, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the
rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by
the Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Ofimion either in person or
through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in
Lisbon in September 1935 :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the
powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of
Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the
said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for
the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be
rendered and printed as Ofimion Number One Hundred and Forty
Fight (Opinion 148) of the said Commission. |

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion. |

Done in London, this tenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.
FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

OPINION 148.

I4I

The Bulletin is the Official Organ of the International Com-
The following Parts have so far been published :—

(contents include a survey of the functions and
powers of the International Commission)
p. XXV1 ‘
(report on the financial position of the Interna-
tional Commission and survey of outstanding
tasks) pp. xiv . ; i

mission.

PART I.

PART 2),

OPINION

1 ByAle

135.
136.

137.

138.

139.

140.

HAL,

142.

143.

144.

Opinions Published by the Commission

On the method to be adopted in interpreting
the generic names assigned by Freyer to
the species described in his Neuere Bettrage
zuy Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858

The suppression of the so-called “ ean
List ’’ of 1801

Opinion supplementary to Opinion rr on the
interpretation of Latreille’s Considéva-
tions générales suv Vordrve naturel des ani-
maux composant les classes des Crustacés,
des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés
en familles, Paris, 1810

On the relative precedence to be accorded
to certain generic names published in
1807 by Fabricius and Hiibner respec-
tively for identical genera in the Lepido-
ptera Rhopalocera

The names Cephus Latreille, (1 802— 1803],
and A stata Latreille, 1796, in the Hymeno-
ptera added to the Official List of Generic
Names

On the method of forming the family names
for Mevrops Linnaeus, 1758 (Aves) and
for Merope Newman 1838 (Insecta)

On the principles to be observed in interpret-

ing Article 4 of the International Code re-

lating to the naming of families and sub-
families

Suspension of the rules for Satyrus Latreille,
1810 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) .

On the method of forming the family name
for Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Insecta, Hemi-
ptera)

On the status of the names Crabro Geoffroy,
1762, Crabro Fabricius, 1775, and Cimbex
Olivier, 1790 (Insecta, Hymenoptera)

price 9s,

price 5s.

od.

price 8d.

price Is,

DEICE) hs:

jOLNCE! IES.

price 25;

price 2s.

PLICe! 2s.

Price 2.

Price 25)

price 2s.

6d,

6d.

od.

I42 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

OPINION 145. On the status of names first published in
works rejected for nomenclatorial pur-
poses and subsequently published in

other works 24) DHCEL2 Sioa.
OPINION 146. Suspension of the rules for Colias Fabricius,
1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera) . : . | “prices od:

OPINION 147. On the principles to be observed in inter:

preting Article 34 of the International

Code in relation to the rejection, as

homonyms, of generic and subgeneric

names of,the same origin and meaning as

names previously published . ; By OLS 2S, Ga.
OPINION 148. On the principles to be observed in inter-

preting Articles 25 and 34 of the Interna-

tional Code in relation to the availability

of generic names proposed as emenda-

tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier

generic names of the same origin and

Mea ANE : A : i PRICE: 2s oa.

Opinions Rendered by the Commission but not yet Published

OPINION 149. Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (In-
secta) added to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology.

OPINION 150. On the dates of publication of the several
portions of Hubner (J.), Verzeichniss
bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—[1826].

OPINION 151. On the status of the names Lasius Panzer,
[1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802,
Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] and
Anthophova Latreille, 1803 (Insecta,
Hymenoptera).

OPINION 152. On the status of the generic names in the
Order Diptera (Insecta) first published in
1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle
Classification des Mouches a deux atles.

OPINION 153. Onthestatus of the names Bethylus Latreille,
[1802-1803], and Dyryinus Latreille,
[1804] (Insecta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 154. On the status of the names Phaneropiera
Serville, 11830) anda ylopsis) Euebers
1853 (Insecta, Orthoptera).

OPINION 155. On the status of the names Callimome
Spinola, 1811, Misocampe Latreille,
1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820 (In-
secta, Hymenoptera).

OPINION 156. Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabri-
cius, 1807 (Insecta, Lepidoptera).

OPINION 157. Three names in the Hymenoptera (Insecta)
added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology.

OPINION 158. On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus,
1758 (Insecta, Orthoptera).

All orders for, and inquiries in regard to, the publications of
the Commission should be addressed to the Commission at their
Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.

}

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 148. 143

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with. any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart--
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature,

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 16. Pp. 145-160.

OPINION 149

Twenty-one names in the Orthoptera (Insecta)
added to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1943
Price four shillings

Issued 9th December, 1943

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

a
The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). Cs

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.).

(vacant) .*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).f

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7. ©

Personal address of the Secretary g
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This, vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A,).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935). .

OPINION 149.

_ TWENTY-ONE NAMES IN THE ORTHOPTERA (INSECTA)
ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC NAMES IN
ZOOLOGY.

SUMMARY.—The following names in the Orthoptera (Insecta)
are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology,
with the types specified in paragraph 10 of the present Opinion :—
Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville, 1825 ; Cheli-
dura Berthold, 1827 ; Eumastax Burr, 1899 ; Gampsocleis Fieber,
1852 ; Gryllacris Serville, 1831 ; Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—
1803] Hemimerus Walker, 1871 ; Labia Leach, 1815 ; Leptophyes
Fieber, 1852 ; Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 ; Myrmecophilus Berthold,
1827 ; Oedipoda Latreille, 1829; Phyllium Illiger, 1798 ; Pro-
phalangopsis Walker, 1871 ; Proscopia Klug, 1820; Psophus
Fieber, 1853 ; Saga Charpentier, 1825 ; Schizodactylus Brullé,
1835 ; Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852 ; Stenopelmatus Burmeister,
1838 ; and Tridactylus Olivier, 1789.

Felon tiene, OF Hb CAS:

Fifteen of the names dealt with in the present Opinion were
included in the list of 52 generic names in the Orthoptera that
figured in the comprehensive list of names drawn from many
Phyla and Classes set out in the paper published in 1915 by ©
Commissioner Karl Apstein under the title “ Nomina conservanda.
Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezialisten herausgegeben von Prof.
C. Apstein, Berlin” (SitzBer. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 1915 (5) : 119-
202). The names in question were :—Bacillus Le Peletier de
Saint Fargeau and Serville.(attributed to Latreille); Chelidura
_ Berthold (attributed to Serville); Gampsocleis Fieber; Gryllacris
Serville; Gryllotalpa Latreille; Labia Leach; Leptophyes Fieber ;
Mantis Linnaeus; Myrmecophilus Berthold (as Myrmecophila
and attributed to Latreille); O¢edspoda Latreille; Phyllium
Illiger; Psophus Fieber (as Psopha); Saga Charpentier; Sphin-
gonothus Vieber (as Splingonotus); and Tridactylus Olivier
(attributed to Latreille).

2. Commissioner Apstein communicated his List to the Com-
mission in the course of 1915 and in December of that year the

148 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Secretary to the Commission suggested that the most satisfactory
way of dealing with this proposal would be to refer the various
portions of which it was made up to special advisory committees
on the nomenclature of the groups concerned. This course was
adopted but, as was inevitable, the reports from the committees
were a long time in coming in. In 1922, the Commission agreed
to render an Opinion (Opinion 74), in which they pointed out that
they had no power to adopt en bloc the list submitted by Com-
missioner Apstein but indicated that they were prepared “to
consider names separately upon presentation of reasonably com-
plete evidence’’. The examination of the names contained in
Commissioner Apstein’s list continued without interruption, and
in due course Dr. A. N. Caudell of the United States National
Museum, to whom the generic names in the Orthoptera had been
referred, submitted a report in which he gave grounds for the
acceptance for the Official List of 12 of the 15 names indicated in
the preceding paragraph. The 3 names not dealt with by Dr.
Caudell were Gryllacris Serville, Oedipoda Latreille, and Tridactylus
Olivier.

3. In June 1929 (when Dr. Caudell’s report was already in draft),
Commissioner Anton Handlirsch submitted to the Commission a
further list of 28 names in the Orthoptera for inclusion in the
Oficial List. In addition to 8 of the names indicated in paragraph
1 above (Bacillus, Gryllacris, Gryllotalpba, Mantis, Oedipoda,
Phylum, Saga, Tridactylus), this list contained, amongst others,
the following names dealt with in the present Opimon :—
Eumastax Burr; Hemimerus Walker; Prophalangopsis Walker ;
Proscopia Klug; Schizodactylus Brullé; and Stenopelmatus
Burmeister.

II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

4. Later in 1929, the Commission invited the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to consider (a) the
list of 52 names submitted by Commissioner Apstein, (b) the
report on certain names contained therein furnished by Dr.
Caudell, and (c) the list of 28 names submitted by Commissioner
Handlirsch, and to submit recommendations to the Commission in
regard thereto. vam

5. This request involved a considerable amount of preliminary
study by the International Committee, and it was accordingly
not until their meeting at Madrid in the second week of September

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 149. I49

1935 that the International Committee were able to draw up a
resolution on this subject for submission to the International
Commission. Of the 80 names comprised in the combined lists,
20 .0f those in Commissioner Handlirsch’s list were included also
in the earlier list submitted by Commissioner Apstein. The total
number of names to be considered was therefore 60. Two of
these names (Locusta Linnaeus and Phaneroptera Serville), which
appeared in both the lists, were placed on one side by the Inter-
national Committee as names which could not be added to the
Official List of Generic Names unless and until the International
Commission decided to use their plenary powers to suspend the
rules in the International Code, a course which the International
Committee decided to recommend.t There remained therefore
56 names proposed for inclusion in the Official List as names which
were available nomenclatorially and whose types had been cor-
rectly determined under Article 30 of the International Code.
After careful consideration, the International Committee came
to the conclusion that the evidence submitted in regard to 34 of
these names was insufficient to justify them in recommending the
International Commission to add the names in question to the
Official List. The International Committee considered that the
remaining 22 names Satisfied all the necessary conditions and
agreed to recommend that they be added to the Official List.
The names in question, together with the species believed to be
their types correctly determined under the Code, were accordingly
placed on a list for submission to the International Commission
as follows :—

(i) Bacillus St. Fargeau ? and Serville, 1825. type: Mantis.
rossia Rossi, 1790. (monotypical)
(11) Chelidura Berthold, 1827. type: Forficula aptera Char-
pentier, 1825. (type designated by Serville, 1831)
(ii) Ewmastax Burr, 1899. type: Mastax tenuis Perty,
1830.2, (monotypical)
(iv) Gampsoclets Fieber, 1852. type: Locusta glabra Herbst,
1786. (type designated by Fieber, 1853?)
(v) Gryllacris Serville, 1831. type: Gryllacris maculicollis 2
Serville, 1831. (type designated by Rehn, 1905)
(vi) Gryllotalpa Latreille, 1802.2 type: Gryllus gryllotalpa
Linnaeus, 1758. (monotypical) ;
* The case of Phaneroptera Serville is dealt with in Opinion 154 and that

of Locusta Linnaeus in Opinion 158.
_ # See note on this name in paragraph 9g below.

I50 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(vil) Hemimerus Walker, 1871. type: Hemimerus talpordes
Walker, 1871. (monotypical)

(vili) Labia Leach, 1815. type: Forficula minor Linnaeus,
1758. (monotypical)

(ix) Leptophyes Fieber, 1852. type: Locusta punctatissima
Bosc, 1792. (monotypical)

(x) Mantis Linnaeus, 1758.2 type: Gryllus religiosa? Lin-
naeus, 1758. (type designated by Latreille, 1810)

(x1) Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827. type: Blatta acervorum
Panzer, 1799.2. (monotypical)

(xii) Oedipoda Serville,2 1831.2 type: Gvryllus caerulescens
Linnaeus, 1758. (type designated by Kirby, rg10) *

(xiil) Phyllium? Mlliger, 1798. type: Gryllus siccifolsus Lin-
naeus, 1758. (monotypical) |

(xiv) Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871. type: Tarraga obscura
Walker, 1868.2. (monotypical) |

(xv) Proscopia Klug, 1820. type: Proscopia oculata? Klug,
1820. (type designated by Kirby, 1910 ?) 7 |

(xvi) Psopha ? Fieber, 1852.2. type: Gryllus stridulus Linnaeus,
1758. (monotypical) 2

(xvil) Saga Charpentier, 1825. type: Locusta serrata Fabricius,
1793. (monotypical)

(xviii) Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835. type: Gryllus monstrosus
Drury, 1773. (monotypical)

(xix) Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852. type: Gryllus caerulans
Linnaeus, 1767. (monotypical)

(xx) Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838. type: Stenopelmatus
talba Burmeister, 1838. (type designated by Kirby,
1906)

(xxi) Tvidactylus Olivier, 1789. type: Acheta digitata? Co-
quebert,? 1804.2 (type designated by Latreille, 1804 ?)

The twenty-second name proposed by the International Com--
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature for inclusion in the
Official List of Generic Names was Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, but, as
the status of that name is bound up with the decision on Phanero-
plera Serville, 1831, it is dealt with in the Opinion relating to that
name.?

6. In view of the fact that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature was to meet at Lisbon immediately after

2 See note on this name in paragraph 9g below.
3 See Opinion 154.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 149. I51

the close of the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at
Madrid, it was impossible for the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature to prepare a formal report on the
above names for consideration by the International Commission.
Further, owing to the impossibility of consulting works of refer-
ence during the Congress at Madrid it was impossible for the
International Committee to verify all the references given in the
list included in paragraph 5 above. The International Committee
accordingly invited their Secretary (Commissioner Karl Jordan)
to explain orally to the International Commission when it met at
Lisbon the grounds on which their recommendations were based
and to explain that those recommendations were submitted on
the basis that the references would be checked by the International
Commission and any minor errors eliminated before the Com-
mission rendered an Opinion in the sense proposed.

7. The recommendations agreed upon by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, as set out in para-
graph 5 above, together with other recommendations submitted
by the International Committee, were confirmed by the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum
held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

HT—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

8. This question was considered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of the
Session held in Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting of
the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this meeting,
which was held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935,
the Commission approved the proposals submitted by the Inter-
national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature as set out in
paragraph 5 above (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 20).
The Commission, who (like the International Committee at
Madrid) were handicapped at Lisbon by not having access to
standard works of reference, agreed, when approving their report
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, at their meeting
held on Wednesday, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 1 (c)) :—

to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after the close
of the Congress when works of reference were available to him, for
the purpose of checking the accuracy of the bibliographical and other
references cited therein, and to correct any errors that might be found
before the text of the report was officially printed.

I52 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

9. After the close of the Lisbon Congress, the list submitted
by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature
(quoted in paragraph 5 above) was examined from the foregoing
point of view and the following corrections, for the most part of a
minor character, were found to be necessary and were accordingly
incorporated both in the report 4 and in the Official Record of the
Proceedings of the Commission at the Lisbon Session :—

(a) Bacillus. This name was published in the entomological
. portion of volume 10 of the Encyclopédie méthodique, Paris
1825. This was prepared by Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau
and Serville, in collaboration. The name of the first of
these authors was given incorrectly in the Lisbon report
aS ote me anceauine

Eumastax Burr. The date of Mastax tenuis Perty, the
type of this genus, is 1832 not 1830 (see Sherborn, 1931,
Index Anim. (Pars secund.) : 6424).

(c) Gampsoclets Fieber. The type of this genus was correctly
given in the Lisbon report as Locusta glabra Herbst, 1786,
but the statement in that report that this species was
designated as the type by Fieber in 1853 (Lotos 3 : 147)
is not accurate. On the first publication of this genus in
1852, Fieber gave as sole species, and therefore as the type
(Article 30 (I) (c)), a species to which he applied the name
Dect[icus| maculatus var. glaber. The reference is clearly
to Decticus glaber Burmeister, 1838 (Handb. Ent. 2 (2)
(No. 1) : 713) but, as pointed out by Sherborn (1926, Index
Anim. (Pars secund.) : 2708), Burmeister did not publish
this as a new name but merely as a grammatical variant of
the name Locusta glabra Herbst.

Gryllacris Serville. Serville placed in this genus three
species: (i) G. maculicollis Serville; (ii) G. ruficeps
Serville; and (ili) G. personata Serville. The first author
to select any of these species as the type of Gvyllacris

* As has been explained elsewhere (Hemming, 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1: 64), it was not found practicable to revise the Commission’s report in
the manner indicated in the Conclusion quoted in paragraph 8 of the
present Opinion_in time to permit the publication of the revised text in the
Compie Rendu of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. Accord-
ingly, the report as there published is identical in every respect with the
report actually submitted to, and approved by, the Congress at the Con-
cijium Plenum held on 21st September 1935. The corrected text of the
report has been published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 53-62, with notes
ay Be See to the Commission on the corrections so made (ibid.

: 64-60).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I49. 153

Serville was Rehn, who in 1905 (Proc. Acad. nat. Sct.
Philad. 57 : 827) designated G. maculicollis as the type. If,
as is commonly held (e.g. by Kirby, 1906, Syn. Cat. Orthobpt.
2:144), that name is a synonym of Gryllus signifera Stoll,
1813 (Spectres Saut. : 26), the first type designation of this
genus is that by Chenu, 1859 (Ency. Hist. nat. Annel. : 66),
who specified G. signifera, thereby automatically specifying
G. maculicollts, one of the originally included species. Both.
these designations have priority over Kirby’s selection of
G. ruficeps Serville in 1906 (Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 2: 139, 143).
Gryllotalpa Latreille. The date of this name was given in
the report as 1802. It has since been ascertained (Griffin,
1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1: 157) that volume 3 of the
work by Latreille in which this name was first published
should be dated [1802-1803].
Mantis Linnaeus. (i) Under Opinion 124 the subdivisions
of genera by Linnaeus in the 10th edition of the Syst. Nat.
do not rank as of subgeneric value as from that date (1758),
except in any case where the International Commission by
using their plenary powers to suspend the rules direct
otherwise, as they did at Lisbon in the case of the name
Locusta (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 18).°
All that the Commission did at Lisbon in the case of the
name Mantis as a generic name was to agree that it should
be placed on the Official List of Generic Names, with
standing as from the date of its first valid publication.
Mins was i 1767 (Syst. Nate (ed. 12) 1 (2):: 689). The
date “ 1758’ given for Mantis in the Lisbon report was a
lapsus calam. |

(11) Linnaeus originally published the name of the type

of this genus as Gryllus religiosus not as Gryllus religiosa,

the form given in the Lisbon report.

Myrmecophilus Berthold. The date of Blatta acervorum
Panzer, the type of this genus, should be cited in square
brackets, since the Parts of Panzer’s Faun. Ins. germ. are
undated and their dates of publication can only be ascer-
tained from external sources.

Oedtpoda. The author of this name is Latreille and not
Serville, as inadvertently stated in the Lisbon report; the
date of publication is 1829 not 1831. The name was

5 See Opinion 158.

I54 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

_—

first published by Latreille 7m Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed.
2) O188.

Phyllium Mlliger. In the version of the Lisbon report
published in 1936 this name was, through a printer’s error,
misspelt Phyllum.

Prophalangopsis Walker. The date of publication of
LTarraga obscura Walker, the type of this genus, is 1869
not 1868 (as stated in the Lisbon report). The reference
is Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 1 : 100.

Proscopia Klug. According to the information supplied
to the Commission at Lisbon, the first of the originally-
included species validly to be designated as the type of
this genus under Article 30 of the Code was Proscopia
oculata Klug, 1820, and this information was accepted by
the Commission, subject (as in the case of all similar data)
to verification after the close of the Congress (see paragraph
8 of the present Ofinion). In fact, however (as pointed out
by Roberts, 1941, Trans. amer. ent. Soc. 67 : 20), the first
of the originally-included species to be designated as the
type was Proscopia gigantea Klug, 1820, that species having
been so designated twice before Kirby in 1910 (Syn. Cat.
Orthopt. 3 :.83, 84) selected Proscopia oculata Klug as the
type. The first selection of Proscopia gigantea Klug as the
type was by Guérin in 1828 (Dict. Class. Hist. nat. 14 3 297) ;
the second was by Kirby himself in 1890 (Scr. Proc. R.
Dublin Soc. (n.s.) 6: 586). In these circumstances, it has
been necessary, under the general directions given by the
Commission, to substitute Proscopia gigantea Klug for -
Proscopia oculata Klug as the type of this genus in correct-
ing the Lisbon report. This change does not affect
the systematic position of the genus Proscopia Klug
according to recent authors (e.g. Hebard, 1924, Jvans.
amer. ent. Soc. 50: 93 and Roberts, 1941, 1b1d. 67: 20),
who treat Proscopia oculata and Proscopia gigantea as
congeneric.

Psophus Fieber. Through some misunderstanding the
name of this genus was given in the Lisbon report as
Psopha Fieber, 1852 (in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2)
instead of as Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Lotos 8: 122). This
was purely by inadvertence since Psopha Fieber, 1852, is
invalid, as it is a homonym of Psopha Billbery, 1828 (Syn.
Scand. 1 (2): tabell. A). That this was so was recognised
by Fieber himself and it was for this reason that within a

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 149. 155

year of the publication of Psopha he replaced that name DY,
the name Psophus. The genus is monotypical.

(m) Tridactylus Olivier. According to the information given
to the International Commission at Lisbon, the type of
this genus was Acheta digitata Coquebert, 1804, that species
hayineabeem sordesionated by ) Watreille, 1804 7%, 7.¢. by
Latreille, [1803-1804] ® (7m Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat.
gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 12:120. In that work Latreille
said (a) that “‘Vespece d’aprés laquelle j’ai établi’’ the
characters there cited for Tvidactylus Olivier was T7-
dactylus paradoxus Latreille and (b) that the latter was the
same species as Acheta digitata Coquebert, 1804. In actual
fact, the first occasion on which any species was placed in
the genus Tridactylus Olivier is Latreille, [1802—1803],’
(¢m Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins.
3 : 276, which also is the place where the name Trzdactylus
paradoxus Latreille was first published. As that species was
the sole species placed by Latreille in this genus on that
occasion, the genus is monotypical and Trdactylus
paradoxus Latreille is automatically the type. Fortun-
ately, the correction which it has in consequence been
necessary to make in the Lisbon report is a purely formal
one only, since Tvidactylus paradoxus Latreille and Acheta
digitata Coquebert are no more than different names for a
single species.

10. The following is the text of Ane decision taken by the
Commission at Lisbon in the present case (Lisbon Session, 2nd
Meeting, Conclusion 20) :—

to render an Opinion placing on the Official List of Generic Names the under-
mentioned twenty-two * nomenclatorially available generic names in the
Orthoptera, with the types indicated, each of which has been duly designated
in accordance with the provisions of the Code :—

Name of genus Type of genus

(1) Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint- Mantis vossia Rossi, 1790, Faun.
Fargeau & Serville, 1825, Ency. etrusc.1: 259
méth. Hist. nat. Ent. 10: 446 (monotypical)
(2) Cheliduva Berthold, 1827, im Forficula aptera Charpentier, 1825,
Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thterrv.: Hor. Ent. : 69
409 (type designated by Serville, 1831,
Ann. Scr. nat. 22: 36 (as Cheli-
doura))

Pvomme £27 is dated An, XIl”, the equivalent of 24th Sept.
meo3-22nd Sept. 1804 (See Griffin, 1930, /. Soc. Bibi, nat. Hist. 1: 249).

7 For the date here assigned to this volume, see note (e) above.

* For the reasons explained “in paragraph 5 above, the twenty-second
name (Tylopsis Fieber) 1s not dealt with in the present Opinion.

156 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(3)

(4)

Name of genus

Eumastax Burr, 1899, An. Soc.
esp. Hist. nat. 28: 75, 94, 257

Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852, in
Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. :
2

(5) Gryllacris Serville, 1831, Ann.

(16)

(17)

(18)

Sct. nat. 22 (86) : 138
Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802-
1803], (i Sonnini’s Buffon)

Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins.
33275

Hemimerus Walker, 1871, Cat.
Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus. 5
Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 2

Brewster’s
: 118

Labia Leach, 1815,
Edinburgh Ency. 9 (1)

Leptophyes Fieber, 1852, 1m

Kelch, Gvundl. Orth. Obersches. :

3
Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, Syst.
Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 689

Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827,
in Latreille, Nat. Fam. Thierr. :

409 f

Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, im
Cuvier, Régne Anim. (ed. 2) 5:
188

Phyllium Mliger, 1798, in Kugel-
ann, Kdfer Preuss. : 499

Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871,
Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus.
5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 116

Proscopia Klug, 1820, Hor. phys.
Berol. : 17

Psophus Fieber, 1853, Lotos 3:
122
Saga Charpentier, 1825, Hor.
Ent. : 95

Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835,
Hist. nat. Ins. 9 (Orth.) : 161

Type of genus

Mastax tenuis Perty, 1832, Del.
Anim. artic. Brasil (2) : 123
(monotypical)

Locusta glabra Herbst, 1786, in
Fuessly, Arch. Ins. 7: 193
(monotypical)

Gryllacris maculicollis Serville,
1831, Ann. Sct. nat. 22 (86) : 139
(type designated by Rehn, 1905,
Proc. Acad. nat. Sci. Philad. 57:
827)

Gryllus gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 428
(monotypical)

Hemimerus talpoides Walker, 1871,

Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Bt. Mus.
5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 2
(monotypical)

Forficula minor Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 423
(monotypical)

Locusta punctatissima Bosc, 1792,
Actes Soc. Hist. nat. Paris 1(1): 45
(monotypical)

Gryllus religiosus Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 426
(type designated by Latreille,
1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust.
Ayvach. Ins. : 433)

Blatta acervorum Panzer, [1799],
Faun. Ins. germ. (68) : Tab. 24
(monotypical) ;

Gryllus caerulescens Linnaeus,
1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 432 ©
(type.designated by Kirby, 1g1I0,
Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 3 : 238)

Gryllus siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 425
(monotypical)

Tarvaga obscuva Walker, 1869,
Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus.
1: 100
(monotypical)

Proscopia gigantea Klug, 1820,
Hor. phys. Berol. : 18

(type designated by Guérin,
1828, Dict. Class. Hist. nat.
14: 297)

Gryllus stridulus Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 432
(monotypical)

Locusta serrata Fabricius, 1793,
Ent. syst. 23 43

(monotypical)

Gryllus monstrosus Drury, 1773,
Iij. nat. Hist. 2: index & 81
(monotypical)

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I49. 157

Name of genus Type of genus

(19) Sphingonothus Fieber, 1852, in Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767,
Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches.: Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 7or
2 (monotypical)
(20) Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838, Stenopelmatus talpa Burmeister,
Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (No. 1) : 720 1838, Handb. Ent. 2 (2) (No.1): 721
(type designated by Kirby, 1906,
Syn. Cat. Orthopt. 23 111)
(21) Tvidactylus Olivier, 1789, Ency. Tridactylus paradoxus Latreille,
méth. 4 (Ins.) : 26 [1802-1803], (¢# Sonnini’s Buffon),
Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins.
3: 276
(monotypical)

Ir. The decisions set out above were embodied in paragraph
24 of the report which at their meeting held on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously
agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to
the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

12. The Ofinion as set out in paragraph 10 above was concurred
in by the twelve (12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the
Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

_ Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vwice Esaki;

Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice

Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

13. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
‘or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was not present on that
occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then
reached by the Commission in this matter.

14. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither
present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission nor
represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present
Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

158 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

IV._AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION. is

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opznion is to be deemed to have been
adopted by the'said International Commission as soon as a majority
of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10) Members
of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in favour thereof,
provided that, where any proposed Ofinion involves a reversal of
any former Opinion rendered by the Commission, such proposed
Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at least fourteen (14)
Members of the Commission voting on the same before such
Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the Commission ;
and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence inthe present Ofimzon either in person or through
Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in Lisbon in
September 1935;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the
said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Ofinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofimion Number One
Hundred and Forty Nine (Opfimion 149) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this fifteenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. ,

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

_ COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION 149. 159

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publicatiofi of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;
(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
_ tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and
(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in
taxonomic theory and practice.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g. (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue
of which is now out of print). Parts 1-8 (containing Declarations
_ 1-8) have now been published.

Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134.
Parts I-17 (containing Opinions 134-150) have so far been pub-
lished. The titles of these Opinions are given on the wrappers
to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other Parts will be published
shortly.

I60 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most
gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission
at their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made
payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature °’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND ComPANY, LTD.,
BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

eee Oe ae

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
Edited by f
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 17. Pp. 161-168.

OPINION 150

On the dates of publication of the several
portions of Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter
Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—-[1826]

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1943
_Price two shillings and sixpence

Issued 9th December, 1943

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1943

“Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Leonhard STEJNEGER (U.5.A.).

(vacant).*

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).f

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Cone
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). -
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 23rd May, 1939, of Dr.
Witmer STONE (U.S.A.).

+ This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION 150.

ON THE DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL POR-
TIONS OF HUBNER (J.), VERZEICHNISS BEKANNTER
SCHMETTLINGE [sic], 1816—[1826].*

SUMMARY.—The dates of publication of Jacob Htibner’s
Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic| should be determined
in the light of the evidence made available as the result of the dis-
covery of Hiibner’s manuscripts. The conclusions to be drawn
from that evidence are summarised in paragraph 8 of the present
Opinion.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

_ This question was raised by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held in Paris in 1932.
At this meeting the International Committee adopted the follow-
ing resolution :—

Les dates de Hiibner, Verzeichniss
Les Citations dans le Verzeichniss de quelques planches des Zutrage ne
prouvent pas que ces pages du Verzeichniss aient été publiées postérieure-
ment aux planches citées.

2. This resolution was submitted by the International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature to Section VIII (Section
on Nomenclature) of the Fifth International Congress of En-
‘tomology, by whom it was unanimously approved. Finally, this
resolution was adopted by the Fifth International Congress of
Entomology in Concilium Plenum on the presentation of the
Report of the Secretary of the Executive Committee of the
Congress.

IJ—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

3. This subject was considered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature at the second meeting of
their Session held at Lisbon in September 1935 during the meeting
of the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. At this

* Dates such as this which are ascertainable only from external sources
are cited in square brackets.

164 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

meeting, which was held on the morning of Monday, 16th Sep-

tember 1935, the International Commission (Lisbon Session, 2nd

Meeting, Conclusion 11) :—

(a) took note that since the adoption by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature of the Resolution referred to above,? the’
surviving manuscripts of Jacob Hubner had been discovered and that
it was likely that these manuscripts, which were now being examined by
Commissioner Hemming, would throw important fresh light on the
problem of the dates of publication of this,* and other, works published
by Jacob Hiibner ;

(b) agreed that, in view of (a) above, the question of the dates of publica-
tion of Hiibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] was one which
should be determined in the light of the evidence made available as the
result of the discovery of Htibner’s manuscripts and that in conse-
quence no action should be taken on the resolution on this subject
adopted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature ;

4. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday,
17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion
17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through
ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had
been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be sub-
mitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by
the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3(b)) he had made a start with the drafting of the
Commission’s report ; that he had made considerable progress in
spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ;
and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a
draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though
in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare
the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which
decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the
Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(ii1)), he was there-
fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the
more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those
matters which it was found impossible to include in the report,
owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with
after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record
of the Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session.

* The resolution in question is that quoted in paragraph 1 of the present
Opinion.
% The work here referred to is the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I50. 165

For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all
matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session
should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found
possible to include references to them in the report to be sub-
mitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such decision
should be treated as having been participated in by all the Com-
missioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission
took note of, and approved, the statement by Commissioner
Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by him, as
recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to be
included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress
in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained,
it was found impossible to deal in the report.

5. [he question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time avail-
able, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Com-
mission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at
Lisbon. It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt
with under the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set
out in paragraph 4 above.

6. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—~

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
eves) ald) otejmegen: |

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
ibmadley, vce stone; Beier wce Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

7. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5) Com-
missioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat
by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham ; Silvestri; and Stiles.

8. The surviving manuscripts of Jacob Hitibner referred to in
the Conclusion adopted by the Commission at Lisbon (quoted in
full in paragraph 3 of the present Opinion) came into the posses-
sion of the Royal Entomological Society of London in February
1935. A start was at once made by Commissioner Hemming in

166 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

examining the documents involved, in order to ascertain what
fresh evidence they contained in regard to the dates of publication
of Hiibner’s entomological works; but in view of the large number
of documents involved it was not until the autumn of 1936 that
this task was completed. The results of this investigation,
together with particulars of evidence on this subject drawn from
all other available sources, were set out by Commissioner Hemming
in a work entitled Hiibner published by the Royal Entomological
Society in February 1937. The evidence relating to the dates of
publication of the several portions of Hiibner’s Verzeschmiss
bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], together with an analysis of the
conclusions to be drawn therefrom, is given in Part 2, Chapter II,
of that work (Hiibnery 1: 488-517). The final conclusions there
reached are as follows :—

The dates of publication of Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter
Schmettlinge [sic], 1816-[1826]

Date of
publication

Signature Pages Species nos.

Verzeichniss
I [x ]-—[3]-4-16 I-96 1816
2-8 17-128 97-1379 [1819]
Q-II 129-176 1380-1822 [1819]
12-13 177-208 1823-2084 [1820]
14-15 209-240 2085-2388 [1821]
16 241-256 23890-2531 [1821]
17-19 257-304 2532-2936 [1823]
20-27 305-431 2937-4198 [1825]
Anzeiger

I-9 I-72 = [1826]

Ii]. AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESEN
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have been
adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I50. 167

before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof,
neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules,
nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the
Commission; and

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the
powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the said Office of
Secretary to the International Commission, hereby announce the
said Opinion on behalf of the International Commission, acting for
the International Congress of Zoology, and direct that it be
rendered and printed as Opinion Number One Hundred and Fifty
(Opinion 150) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this sixteenth day of March, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in
the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

168 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s ~
Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Parts 1-8 of Volume 1 (containing Declavations 1-8) have so far been
published.

Parts 1-17 of Volume 2 (containing Opinions 134-150) have so far been
published.

Additional Parts of both Volumes will be published shortly.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

[Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Lid., Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
LOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 20. Pp. 169-180.

OPINION 151

On the status of the names Lasius Panzer,

[1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Lasius

Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora

Latreille, 1803 (Class Insecta, Order
Hymenoptera)

LONDON: .

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944
Price three shillings

ae es ee a |
Issued 24th May, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant) .*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). sot
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

~~ tions MLS EL HA
———<——<———

enna eeenns viel
‘AN

OPINION 151. sd

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES LASIUS PANZER, [1801-
1802], PODALIRIUS LATREILLE, 1802, LASTUS FABRICIUS,
[1804-1805], AND ANTHOPHORA LATREILLE, 1893 (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], and (ii) the name Podalirius Latreille,
1802 (Class Inseeta, Order Hymenoptera) are suppressed ; (iii) all
existing type designations for Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and
Anthophora Latreille, 1803, are set aside; (iv) Formica nigra
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Lasius Fabricius;
and (v) Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775, is hereby designated as the type
of Anthophora Latreille. The names Lasius Fabricius and Antho-
phora Latreille (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), with the types
indicated above, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 594 and 595.

I.— THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James
Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the
Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by
Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was sub-
mitted to the International Commission :—

The case of Lasius, Podahirius and Anthophora

Lasius Fabricius 1804 ! applies to a genus of ants. Latreille in 1809
sank it as a synonym of Formica. Mayr in 1861 revived Lasius Fabr. and
designated Formica nigra L.as type. The name has since been universally
used for the very common genus of ants for which it was proposed.

But Jurine, 1801 (Panzer: Erlangen List) had established a Lasius
for a genus of bees (type: Apis quadrimaculata Panzer, a well-known
European bee). Until Morice and Durrant, 1914, called attention to it,
this prior use of Lasius had escaped the attention of all subsequent writers,
who, as pointed out by Morice and Durrant, if they recognised it at all,
ascribed it to Jurine, 1807, and hence later than the synonyms Podalirius
and Anthophora.

Podalirius was established by Latreille (1802). Latreille proposed
Anthophora as a substitute name for Podalivius on the ground that the

1 The correct date of Fabricius’s Systema Piezatorum is [1804-1805],
not 1804, as here stated. See Griffin, 1935, im Richards, Trans. R. ent.
Soc. Lond. 88: 144.

I72 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

latter was preoccupied in plants. Therefore when in 1810 he made pilipes
type of Podalirius, it became, ipso facto, type of Anthophora. Since 1803
authors have universally used Anthophora, have made it type of the sub-
family ANTHOPHORINAE and of the family ANTHOPHORIDAE; except that
Dalla Torre in his Catalogus Hymenopterorum quite correctly restored
Podalivius and changed the subfamily to PODALIRINAE. Nevertheless
subsequent writers on bees have mostly continued to use Anthophora and
ANTHOPHORIDAE.

In view of the above facts, of the extreme confusion that would be caused
by the substitution of the name of a well-known genus of ants for that ofa
large and common genus of bees, with its dependent subfamily and family ;
and in further view of the lesser confusion that would be caused by having
to adopt Podalirius for Anthophora, the undersigned respectfully request the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take the follow- .
ing action, to wit:

(1) to suspend the rules in the cases of the genera Lasius Jurine, Lasius
Fabricius, Podalirius Latreille, and Anthophora Latreille ;

(2) to permanently reject Lasius Jurine (or Panzer) 1801, type Apis
quadrimaculata; and Podalirius Latreille, 1803, type Apis pilipes
Fabr. ;

(3) to validate Anthophora Latreille, 1803, type Apis pilipes Fabr., and
Lasius Fabricius, 1804, type Formica nigra L. ;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names Anthophora Latr.,
1803, type Apis pilipes Fabr., for the genus of bees commonly known
by that name, and Lasius Fabr., 1804, type Formica nigra L., for
the genus of FoRMICIDAE commonly known by that name.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International
Commission :—

H. von Thering {
A. C. "W. Wagner

A. von Schulthess
Rk. B. Benson *

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert je Aliken H. Brauns ¢

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
ie Erison = J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
A, Ro Park R. Fouts P. P. Baby,

H. H. Ross * G,. Arnold Vi, SOL. Pate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
OW eViG Wy Weeler = I. Micha G. Enderlein

G, F, Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * A. C, Kinsey * O. Vogt Tf
E, A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +
A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger +

W. M. Mann PP; kKoth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams f

O. Schmiedeknecht +
N, N.. Kuznezoy-

H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky +
‘H.. Bischoff... W. V. Balouf * hE aes
-L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. A Weld =

* In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied

the points involved in the particular case.

. + Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his

signature was not included in his reply.

{ Deceased.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5I. 173

fi—_THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International
Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and —
the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should
be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held
at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom-
mendations of the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature would be available.

4. This case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the
second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration the Com-
mittee decided to frame its recommendations to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, first on the assumption
that the Commission would agree to use their plenary powers to
-suppress the “ Erlangen List ’’ in which the name Lastus Jurine,
1801, was published, and second on the assumption that the
Commission would not be able to see their way to deal with the
problem in this radical fashion. If the first of these courses were
taken by the International Commission, there would be no need
to suspend the rules for the purpose of eliminating the name
Lasius Jurine, 1801, since that name would cease to be available
nomenclatorially immediately the ‘‘Erlangen List ’’ was suppressed.
It would still be necessary, however, for the International Com-
mission to use their plenary powers in order to achieve the object
indicated in the petition. The International Committee ac-
cordingly recommended that, if the ‘“‘ Erlangen List’’ were not
suppressed, the whole of the petition should be granted; .and
that, if the ‘‘ Erlangen List ”’ were suppressed, the petition, less the
portion relating to Lasius Jurine, 1801, should be granted.

5. These and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were subsequently
confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at
the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

IIIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they

174 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published,
had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the
illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for
other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided
at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under
suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question
should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after
the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should
be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement
was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The
case of the names Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], Podalirius Latreille,
1802, Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Anthophora Latreille,
1803, was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt
with by the Commission under the above procedure.

7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday,
16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
13), the International Commission unanimously agreed to use the
plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International
Congress of Zoology at Monaco in Ig13, in order to suppress the
“Erlangen List ’’.2 When, therefore, at their meeting held on the
afternoon of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Con-
clusion 2) the Commission came to consider the present case,
they found that there was no need to make use of their plenary
powers so far as the name Lasius Jurine, 1801, was concerned,
since that name had ceased to be available on the suppression of
the ‘Erlangen List”’. The Commission proceeded therefore to
consider this case in the light of the recommendations framed by
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in
anticipation of the decision that the ‘‘ Erlangen List ’’ should be

suppressed.
2 See Opinion 135.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5I. 175

_8.- After careful consideration, the International Commission
decided to adopt the recommendations submitted in this case by
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature,
and accordingly agreed 3__ es 3

OOM Kel OO Y!@

(b) under “‘ suspension of the rules ’’ permanently to reject the following
generic names :— | af mets py Sienna
(8) Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802],4 Faun. Ins. germ. (86) : Tab. 16
(9) Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 430

(c) under “ suspension of the rules’ to set aside all type designations
for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(21) Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805],5 Formica mgva Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst, Piezat. : 415 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 580
(22) Anthophova Latreille, 1803, Apis pilipes Fabricius, 1775, Syst.
Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 18: 167 Ent. : 383

(d) under ‘“‘ suspension of the rules”’ to place on the Official List of
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

g. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its,
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission

3 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of this Conclusion, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 27-30.

* The date of Lasius Panzer was inadvertently given in the Lisbon report
as 1804. The correct date for Heft 86 of Panzer’s Faun. Ins. geym., in
which this name was first published, is [1801-1802]. Dates assigned to
names published in this work should be cited in square brackets, since the
-Hefte in which it was published are undated and their dates of publication

can only be ascertained from outside sources.
> See footnote 1. : 3

176 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred -
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.6 In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
case of the names specified in paragraph 8 above, no communi-
cation of any kind has been received by the International Com- —
mission objecting to the issue of an Opinion in the terms proposed.

11. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor Fpieconced thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham ; Silvestri. and Stiles. -

[V.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OR iris PRESENT
OPINION.

WuerEAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its’
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict eee CS

6 See Declaration 5.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I51. 177

of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-_
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Fifty One (Opinion 151) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this sixth day of April, Nineteen Hundred and
Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the
archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
eigpure. |

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

178 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and

Three Parts have so far been published: Part 1 (introductory,
including an account of the functions and powers of the Com-
mission and a summary of the work so far achieved): 9 eatgas2
(relating to the financial position of the Commission); Part 3
(containing the official records of the decisions taken by the
Commission at their meeting at Lisbon in 1935).

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue
of which is now out of print). Parts 1-9 (containing Declarations
I—g) have now been published.

Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134.
Parts I-21 (containing Declarations 10 and 11 and Opinions 134-
152) have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are
given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other
Parts will be published shortly. — ee

COMMISSION ON a eh ie NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5I. 179

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations coneerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenelature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most
gratefully received. They should be addressed to the Commission
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
Bankers’ drafts, cheques, and Postal Orders, should be made
- payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
elature °’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

‘
~ ‘
\
= A
rc .
= A
. = ed ,
2 e
.
i i ile)
. .
~
5
: E
-
- 3 f
.
7 y
Y +4 é Pie he
th i
- y ¢ =
“J
‘ > a
AS
.
,
pata “3 3s
2
“ i 5
= s
.
} P
> -
¥.
y “
, t
-
= rs
'
>
~

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 21. Pp. 181-196.

OPINION 152

On the status of the generic names in the Order

Diptera (Class Insecta) first published in 1800

by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle Classification
des Mouches a deux ailes

N
LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944
Price four shillings

Issued 24th May, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.5.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany). |
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant) .*

Class 1952

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, $.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr. —
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION) 152.

-ON THE STATUS OF THE GENERIC NAMES IN THE ORDER
DIPTERA (CLASS INSECTA) FIRST PUBLISHED IN 1800 BY
J. W. MEIGEN IN HIS NOUVELLE CLASSIFICATION DES
MOUCHES A DEUX AILES.

‘SUMMARY.—The generic names in the Order Diptera (Class
Insecta) first published in 1800 by J. W. Meigen in his Nouvelle
Classification des Mouches a deux ailes are to be treated as having
priority as from that date. Where, in the case of any given name
first published in the above work, specialists in the group concerned
are of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, the specialists
in question should submit full particulars to the International
Commission with such recommendations for the suspension of the
rules in the case of that generic name as they may consider the
most appropriate.

Adin STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

During the meeting of the Fifth International Congress of
Entomology held in Paris in July 1932, the Section on Nomen-
clature (Section VIII) constituted an ad hoc committee on nomen-
clature for the duration of the Congress (Compte Rendu : 57).
This committee, by a majority of 4 to 2, decided to recommend
the adoption by Section VIII of the following resolution :—

Meigen, Nouvelle Classification, 1800

Resolution: La Section VIII, étant d’opinion qu'il ¥. aurait maintenant
plus de confusion a rejeter les noms génériques de la ‘‘ Nouvelle Classifica-
tion ’’ de MEIGEN 1800 qu’a les retenir, mepomumanidle par conséquent ae ils
soient définitivement adoptés.

2. This and other resolutions adopted by the ad hoc committee
were subsequently adopted by Section VIII of the Congress
(Compte Rendu: 57). At the close of the Congress, these resolu-
tions were laid before the Congress at the final Concilium Plenum
in the report presented by the Permanent Secretary to the
Executive Committee of the Congress. The Congress was then
asked to confirm or reject each resolution without discussion
(Compte Rendu:57). In the published version of the Report of

184 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the Permanent Secretary, an annotation (in heavy clarendon
type) is added at the end of each resolution indicating the action
taken in regard thereto under this procedure by the Concilium
Plenum of the Congress. In the case of the resolution quoted in
paragraph I above, the annotation so added (zb7d. : 58) reads :
‘““ Adopté par majorité contre dix voix.’’. Immediately below
the last of the resolutions so adopted by the Paris Congress there
appears the following note (1bid.: 58): ““ Toutes ces Résolutions
doivent étre soumises au Comité international pour la Nomen-
clature entomologique.”’

II.—_THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. The first meeting after the Paris Congress of the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature was held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935 during the meeting of the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology. At this Session
the International Committee were confronted with an exceptionally
long agenda in view of the large number of cases that had been
referred to them by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature with a request for a statement of their views in time
for consideration by the International Commission at their
Session arranged to open at Lisbon immediately after the close of
the Madrid Congress. In these circumstances, the International
Committee concentrated the bulk of the attention upon these
cases, even though they recognised that by so doing they might ~
be unable to give detailed consideration to each of the resolutions
adopted by the Paris Congress. As regards the resolution adopted
at that Congress in regard to Meigen’s Nowvelle Classification, the
International Committee took the view that the division of
opinion among dipterists in regard to this work was such that it
was impossible to find a solution that would be agreeable to all
concerned; the most that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature could hope to do would be to devise
some arrangement which would provide a basis on which later a
settlement could be framed. : ;

4. At their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 8), the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature re-affirmed the view
expressed in reports submitted by them to previous meetings of
the International Congress of Zoology that great weight should
be attached to recommendations submitted by groups of special-

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I52. 185.

ists such as the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature and the corresponding body formed recently in
the case of ornithology. The Commission felt bound, however,
to reserve to themselves the right in all cases of deciding whether
recommendations so submitted were in conformity with the
principles of the Code and were within the powers granted to the
Commission at successive meetings of the International Congress
of Zoology. The Commission accordingly decided to guide
themselves by these principles in their examination of the recom-
mendations submitted by the Fifth International Congress of
Entomology at their meeting held in Paris in 1932.

Iit.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

5. The resolution in regard to Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification
quoted in paragraph 1 above was considered by the International
Commission’ at Lisbon at their meeting held on the morning of
Monday, 16th September 1935. In the course of the discussion
of the problems involved, attention was drawn to the following
considerations :—

(i) fhe present was the second occasion on which the Com-
mission had been asked to render an Ofznion on Meigen’s
Nouvelle Classification. The first was in 1909 when Pro-
fessor J. M. Aldrich had asked for a decision on the validity
of the generic names published in this work and, in doing so,
-had expressed the view that “‘ nothing in recent years has
threatened the nomenclature of Diptera with such an over-
turning as the position taken by three European entomolo-
gists in recognizing this paper as a valid nomenclatural
contribution.”

(11) At the time that Professor Aldrich submitted this case, the
only power of the Commission was to render Opinions on
questions involving—directly or indirectly—the interpreta-
tion of the Code, as it was not until four years later that (in

1913) the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at their
Monaco meeting had conferred upon the Commission plenary
powers to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict appli-
cation of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion

1 See Declaration to,

186 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(iii)

than uniformity. Thus, at the time of the receipt of Pro-
fessor Aldrich’s application, the only question which it was
open to the Commission to consider was whether Meigen’s-
Nouvelle Classification had, or had not, been published
within the meaning of the Code. For the reasons-given in
their Opinion on this subject (Opinion 28 published in-
October 1910), the Commission had reached the conclusion
that the Nouvelle Classification had been duly published.
They had accordingly adopted the following conclusion which
they had set out in the “Summary ” of Opinion 28 :—

“The generic names contained in Meigen’s ‘ Nouvelle
Classification ’, 1800, must take precedence over those in his
‘Versuch ’, 1803, in every case where the former are found
to be valid under the International Code.”’

The present application dealt with an entirely different
aspect of the problem, for, in effect, it asked @thangene:
Commission should use their plenary powers to suspend the
rules, in order to declare that the generic names first published
in the Nouvelle Classification should now be “ definitively
adopted ’’. That such a proposal should have been put
forward could only be due to a misapprehension of the
position. No such action was required—or would be
appropriate—since (as stated in Opinion 28) the Nouvelle
Classification satisfied the requirements of the Code as
regards publication. The present position was therefore
that the names first published in that work, if otherwise
available, should be used in preference to any later name in

every case where the genera so named could’ be identified
“and type speéciés could be assigned -to them. oe
It was obvious that, before any given generic name first

published in the Nouvelle Classification could be accepted as
valid under the Code, it would bé necessary to determine
whether that name was available nomenclatorially. Four
questions were involved in this process. The: first and
third of these were concerned with nomenclatorial questions,
while the answers to the second and fourth depended on
decisions taken on taxonomic grounds. The questions to
be answered were :—

(a) Is the name a homonym of some other name pre-
viously published for a genus in any part of the
animal kingdom ?

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. 187

(b) If the answer to (a) is in the negative, what is the
species which, under the procedure indicated in
Opinion 46, should be accepted as the type of the
genus ? as)

(c) Is the species recognised under (b) above as the type
of the genus also the type of another genus having an
older and nomenclatorially available name? —

(d) If the answer to (c) is in the negative, should the
species recognised as the type of the genus be regarded
as congeneric with some other species that is the type
of a genus having an older and nomenclatorially
available name ?

Only where questions (a), (c) and (d) were all answered
in the negative is the name in question a name which could—
and should—be brought into use for the species recognised
under (b) above as its type and for any other species which
on taxonomic grounds are regarded as congeneric therewith.

(v) Although Meigen placed no species in the genera first
published in the Nouvelle Classification, this was because in
that work he was only concerned with genera. It was
certainly in no way due to any failure on his part to accept
the principles of binary nomenclature, whether that term
was interpreted in the sense indicated in Opinion 20 or in
the narrower sense proposed in the resolution voted upon
at the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology at Padua
in 1930. Thus, whatever decision might ultimately be

__ taken as the definition of the term “‘ binary nomenclature ’’,
_.... that. decision. could in. no. circumstances. have any bearing
_... upon.the status .of the. names in Meigen’s. Nowvelle Classi-

(vi) Generic names first. published without originally included
species were always liable to give rise to difficulty and to
prove a stumbling block in the way of attaining stability in
nomenclature. The procedure for dealing with such cases
that had been indicated by the Commission in Opinion 46
did not—and in the nature of things could not—provide an

. automatic means of determining the types of such genera.

2 The question of the meaning to be attached to the expression ‘‘ binary
nomenclature ’’ as used-in the International Code is at present sub judice,
having been expressly referred to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature by the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology.
For further particulars, see 1943, Bull. zool, Nomencl. 1:45, 55.

188 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(vil

——

It was inevitable therefore that cases should arise where
specialists would differ on the question of the identity of the
type of a genus of this kind. Where this happened, the
only way of securing stability for the nomenclature of the
group concerned was to obtain from the International
Commission an Opinion under their plenary powers either
definitely selecting a given species as the type of the genus
or suppressing the generic name altogether. In the case of
Meigen’s Nouvelle Classification, it must be noted that those
specialists who claimed to have recognised genera first
named in the Nouvelle Classification were by no means
unanimous regarding the identity of the type species of the
genera so recognised.

Another difficulty that was always liable to arise in the case
of genera first published without included species (such as
those in the Nouvelle Classification) was that it might prove
impossible to recognise any species as certainly referable to
a particular genus. In such a case, no type could be
designated and the genus remained indefinitely a “ genus
dubium’’. In such a case, great inconvenience (or con-
fusion) might arise if the name in question—as used by
some later author or by the same author in a later publica-
tion—had become an important name, for example the
type genus of a well-known family, and had thus become
deeply embedded in the literature of the group and perhaps
also in the technical literature of some allied science. The
fact that on its first publication a name was applied to a
genus which later it was agreed must be regarded as a genus
dubium did not in any way affect the nomenclatorial status
of that name. Unless it was a homonym of a still earlier
name, it continued to be available nomenclatorially, even
though attached only to a genus dubium. It was obvious that
in the interests of zoology as a whole, this was inevitable,
since otherwise an author on Phylum “‘ X ”’ who wished to
ascertain whether a given name was available for a genus
in his group and found that it had already been published
as a generic name in some other Phylum “ Y ”’, would not—
as at present—know at once that the name in question was
unavailable in his own group (Phylum “ X’’) but would
have to start researches in Phylum “‘ Y ”’ (a group regarding
the systematics of which he probably knew nothing) in
order to ascertain whether the name with which he was con-

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I52. 189

(vill)

~—

cerned was accepted as the recognisable name of a genus in
that Phylum or whether it was regarded as the name of a
genus dubium. Clearly any such procedure would throw
an altogether intolerable burden on workers in other groups.
The only way in which the name bestowed upon a genus
dubtum can be made available for use in some other sense
is by the use by the International Commission of their
plenary powers to suspend the rules in order to suppress for
nomenclatorial purposes the use of that name on the occasion
on which it was published in connection with the genus
dubtum. Except where such action is taken by the Inter-
national Commission, any later use is automatically invalid,
since the name, when so used, is a dead homonym (under
Article 34 of the Code) of the same name when originally
used for the genus dubium.

The Paris resolution in regard to Meigen’s Nouvelle Classi-
jication now before the Commission had not been unanimously
adopted by the ad hoc committee of the Congress by whom
it had been drafted. Nor had the Fifth International
Congress of Entomology itself been unanimous, for it had
only adopted the resolution by a majority. Further, it was

common knowledge that opinion on this subject was deeply

divided among dipterists. It was particularly desirable
therefore that the Commission should weigh the various
relevant considerations with the greatest care in order to
ensure that whatever decision they might now take was the
one best calculated to promote stability of nomenclature in
the Order Diptera.

The generic names first published in the Nouvelle Class1-
fication were of very unequal importance. In the case of
some of these names, it was a matter of indifference whether
the genus so named could be recognised or not or, if it could
be recognised, whether it replaced some other name first
published by Meigen in 1803. On the other hand, many of
the genera published by Meigen in 1800 had been identified

_ with, and should therefore replace, genera first published by

him in 1803. Some of the latter were genera of great
importance in the Order Diptera and in a considerable
number of cases had given their names to well-known
Families in that Order. The supersession of these names
by names published in 1800 (of which the same species
had been specified as the type) would—it was claimed—

I90 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

lead to great confusion, without securing any compen-
sating advantage whatever. It was precisely to remove
anomalies of this kind resulting from the application of
the rules in the International Code to names published
long before that instrument had been adopted by the.
International Congress of Zoology that that body had at
Monaco in 1913 conferred upon the International Com-
mission plenary powers to suspend the rules as applied to
any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission,
the strict application of the rules would clearly result in
greater confusion than uniformity. There were, therefore,
strong grounds for treating these cases individually, in
order to determine whether the circumstances were such as
to call for the use by the Commission of their plenary powers.
Clearly, if an individual examination was to be made of these
cases, Specialists in the groups concerned should submit to
the Commission the data necessary to enable a decision to be
taken.

(x) In assessing the importance to be attached to evidence so
supplied it would be necessary for the Commission, when
considering names that were widely used either in applied
entomology or in the teaching of entomology, to take
account of the views of workers in those fields as well as of
the opinion of systematic workers in the Order Diptera.

6. At the conclusion of the discussion summarised in the
preceding paragraph, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd
Meeting, Conclusion I =e : |

to anaes an Olen dicate my

(i) that the generic names first. oe ched iba) 2 ace ee Folens * Wilhelm
MEIGEN in his “ Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux atles”
should be treated as having priority as from that date; but

(1) that, where in the case of any given generic name first published i in the
above work, specialists in the group concerned are of the opinion that
The Senet application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity, the specialists in question should submit full
particulars to the Commission with such recommendations for the
suspension of the rules in the case of that sone name as yey may
consider the most appropriate.

7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday, ©
17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion
17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through
ill-health of Dr. C, W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. IQl

been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be sub-
mitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by
the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the
Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in
spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of refer-
ence; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to
lay a draft report before the Commission at their next meeting,
though in the time available it would be quite impracticable to
prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on
which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the
Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(i11)), he was therefore
concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the more
important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters
which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to
the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the
Congress on the basis of the records in the Offictal Record of the
Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For
this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters
unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be
treated in the same manner, whether or not it was found possible
to include references to them in the report to be submitted to the
Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated
as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and
Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and
approved, the-statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted -
the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above; in régard both
tothe selection: of items: to: be ineluded in: their report ‘to: the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure
to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with
_ which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal-
in the report.-

8. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to whichit was found impossible, in the time available,
to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is
therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the
procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph
7 above. |

g. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)

I92 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner-
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5)
Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented
thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Ofimion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been aoe by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Opimion either in person or
through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in
Lisbon in September 1935 :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. 193

holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Fifty Two (Opinion 152) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this seventh day of April, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. | |

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

I94 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication Cl oe

_(a) proposals on Jeatoatl nomenclature cubiaereae to ‘the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opimions 1-133 (the original issue
of which is now out of print). Parts 1-9 (containing Declarations
1-9) have now been published.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 152. 195

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
' Seience, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purpose for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 23. Pp. 197-208.

OPINION 153

On the status of the names Bethylus Latreille,
[1802-1803], and Dryinus Latreille, [1804]
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1944

Price three shillings

(All rights reserved)
————— eee

Issued 12th July, 1944

Se mm," Ff
en _ , ,
Pipl —_
hewmen T CTE

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant).*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION 153.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES BETHYLUS LATREILLE,
[1802-1803], AND DRYINUS LATREILLE, [1804] (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) all existing type
designations for Bethylus Latreille, [1802—1803],1 are suppressed ;
and (ii) Omalus fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, is hereby designated
as the type of Bethylus Latreille. The names Bethylus Latreille,
with the type indicated above, and Dryinus Latreille, [1804], with
type Dryinus formicarius Latreille, [1804-1805] (Class Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) are hereby added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 596 and 597.

T—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The case of Psilus, Bethylus and Dryinus

Under the rules, as shown by Bradley (1919, p. 71),? Pstlus Jurine,
1801, is the valid name for the genus of wasps universally known as
Bethylus, type of the family BETHYLIDAE, and therefore the family
named BETHYLIDAE must be changed to the unfamiliar family PsILIDAE.

The type of Bethylus Latr., 1802, is Tiphia hemiptera Fabr., a species
not certainly recognizable but which may be a Dryinus in the sense of
authors (see Dalla Torre) or a Bethylus in the sense of the customary usage
of that name (see Kieffer). Under the rules it would seem that Bethylus
as well as the family name BETHYLIDAE must be suppressed.

Dryinus Fabr. (1804, Syst. Piez. p. 200) was proposed for five species,
aeneus, auripennis, planifrons, planiceps, and explanatus. Schulz has
studied the Fabrician types and finds that no one of these was a Dryinus
in the sense of Latreille, 1805, and all subsequent authors. So far as I
am aware, no one has designated a type for Dryinus Fabr., 1804.

Dryinus Latr., 1805, type D. formicarius Latr. by designation of Latr.,
1810, is a homonym of Dryinus Fabr., 1804, as pointed out by Kieffer
(1911) and by Schulz (1912) and hence invalid under the Code. Kieffer
(Joc. cit.) has proposed for it the new name Lestrodryinus.3

1 Where the date of a name can be ascertained only by reference to
some work other than that in which the name in question was first published,
that date is cited in square brackets.

* The reference is to Bradley, 1919, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919: 71.

3 Lestrodryinus Kieffer, 1911, Bull. Soc. Metz 27: 108.

200 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

But Dryinus Latr. (nec Fabr.) is the type of the family DRYINIDAE
Haliday, 1837, and most subsequent writers. Schulz (1906) has therefore
proposed the name ANTEONIDAE to replace DRYINIDAE Haliday, 1837,
basing the name on Anteon Jurine, 1807, the next oldest contained genus
inthe family. In this procedure Schulz appears to the undersigned to be
wrong.* Since Dryinus Latr., 1805, is type of the family DRYINIDAE
Haliday, 1837, but is a homonym of Dryinus Fabr., the name of the
genus Dryinus must be changed (to Lestrodryinus Kieffer if it is the
first name available under the Code) but the same genus should remain
as type under its new name and the family name should be based on the
replacing name (i.e. LESTRODRYINIDAE not ANTEONIDAE).

We respectfully wish to ask the Commission to decide whether under
the Code and so far as the facts known and above stated indicate, the
name of the family should be ANTEONIDAE or LESTRODRYINIDAE.!

Further, in view of the uncertainty as to whether Bethylus hemipterus
is or is not a Dryinid (sense of authors) and as to whether BETHYLIDAE
ought not really to be used in the sense of DRYINIDAE instead of in its
customary sense, and of the needless confusion that will arise in the minds
of all and in future literature if we must change all these long-established
names, the undersigned respectfully petition you to invoke the plenary
power conferred by the Monaco Congress, and to take action as follows :

(1) suspend the rules in the case of Psilus Jurine, 1801, Dryinus
Fabricius, 1804, Dryinus Latreille, 1805, Bethylus Latreille, 1802;
(2) to permanently reject Psilus Jurine, 1801, type Psitlus cenoptera
(Panzer) Jurine, i.e. Tiphia cenoptera Panzer, and Dvryinus

Fabricius, 1804 ;

(3) to validate :—

(a) Bethylus Latreille, 1802, establishing any known European
species as for example Bethylus cephalotes Forster, as type,

in lieu of the unidentified B. hemipterus ;
(b) Dryinus Latr., 1805, type Dryinus formicarius Lattr. ;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names :—

(a) Bethylus Latreille, type Bethylus cephalotes Forster, for the
genus of wasps commonly passing under that name;

(b) Dryinus Latr., 1805, type Dryinus formicarius Latr., for
the genus of wasps commonly passing under that name.

* Art. 5 of the Code says “‘ The name of a family or subfamily is to be
changed when the name of its type genus is changed ’”’ but it does not
specify that the type genus itself is to be changed.*

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-
mission :—

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns {

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
TEL Prison J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
Peal kee dereualce cs R. Fouts P. P. Babiy

H. H. Ross * G. Arnold V.S. Ly Bate

4 For the decision of the Commission on the principles to be observed in
interpreting Article 4 of the International Code relating to the naming of
families and subfamilies, see Opinion 141.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 201

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley

W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

et Wyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * A. C. Kinsey * OV Vost

E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl t

A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger +

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin Be Se Walliams;
H. von Ihering { A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht +
A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. IN: Kuznezov-
H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky +

H. Bischoff W. V. Balouf * F. E. Lutz

L. Masi D. S$. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

* Tn accord with results sought by the petition without having studied
the points involved in the particular case.

+ Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not included in his reply.

t Deceased.

II.—_ THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International
Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and
the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should
be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held
at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom-
mendations of the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature would be available.

4. This case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. The International Committee found
itself in general agreement with the object sought in the petition,
except that it considered that, if the International Commission
were to agree to use their plenary powers in this case, it would be
preferable that the Commission. should designate Omalus fusci-
cornis Jurine, 1807, as the type of Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803],
rather than Bethylus cephalotes Forster, the species tentatively
suggested in the petition. After careful consideration the
Committee decided to frame its recommendations to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, first on the
assumption that the Commission would agree to use their plenary
powers to suppress the “ Erlangen List’”’ in which the name
Psilus Jurine, 1801, was published, and second on the assumption
that the Commission would not be able to see their way to deal
with the problem in this radical fashion. If the first of these
courses were taken by the International Commission, there would

202 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

be no need to suspend the rules for the purpose of eliminating
the name Psilus Jurine, 1801, since that name would cease to be
available nomenclatorially immediately the “ Erlangen List ”’
was suppressed. It would still be necessary, however, for the
International Commission to use their plenary powers in order to
achieve the object indicated in the petition. The International
Committee accordingly recommended that, if the “‘ Erlangen List ”’
were not suppressed, the whole of the petition should be granted,
except for the substitution of Omalus fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, for
Bethylus cephalotes Forster as the species to be designated as the
type of Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803]; and that, if the “ Erlan-
gen List ’’ were suppressed, the petition should be dealt with in
the same way, except that in that case there would be no need to
take any specific action as regards Psilus Jurine, 1801.

III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate con-
sideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “ under
suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question
should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after

-* COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 203

‘the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should
be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement
was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The
case of the names Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], and Dryinus
Latreille, [1804], was one of the cases in question and was accord-
ingly dealt with under the above procedure. 7

7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday,
16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
13), the International Commission unanimously agreed to use the
plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth International
Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, in order to suppress the
“Erlangen List ’’.5> When, therefore, at their meeting held on
the afternoon of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 2) the Commission came to consider the present case,
they found that there was no need to make use of their plenary
powers, so far as the name Psilus Jurine, 1801, was concerned,
since that name had ceased to be available on the suppression
of the “ Erlangen List ’’. The Commission proceeded therefore
to consider this case in the light of the recommendations framed
by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature
in anticipation of the decision that the ‘“‘ Erlangen List ’”? would
_ be suppressed. :

8. When the Commission turned to the examination of the
details of this case, attention was drawn to the fact that since
‘its submission to the Commission further information had become
available regarding the dates of publication of the works in which
two of the names cited in the petition were first published (see
Griffin, 1935, 7” Richards, Trans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 88 : 144) :—

(a) The name Dryinus Latreille was published on page 176 of
volume 25(Tab.) of the Nowvelle Dictionnaire d’ Histoire
naturelle. This work had hitherto been treated as having
been published in 1805. It had now been ascertained,
however, that it was already published by March 1804 ;

(b) The name Dryinus Fabricius was published on page 200 of

; that author’s Systema Piezatorum, which, though dated

_ “ 1804’, was probably published in the early part of 1805

and was certainly not published until late in 1804. This
name must therefore be dated [1804-1805].

5 See Opinion 135.

—

204 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

There is thus now no doubt that Dryinus Latreille is an older
name than Dyyinus Fabricius and not (as previously supposed)
the reverse. In these circumstances there was no need to suspend
the rules (as proposed in the petition) so far as concerns these two
names.

g. After careful consideration, the Commission decided to
approve the recommendation submitted in this case by the
International Committee, subject only to the modification noted
in paragraph 8 above. The Commission accordingly agreed
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) ® :—

(a) to place on the Official List of Generic Names the undermentioned

six nomenclatorially available names, with types as shown, each

of which has been duly designated in accordance with the provisions
of the International Code :—

Name of genus Type of genus
( 3 ) Dryinus Latreille, [March Dryinus formicarius Latreille,
ESo4)|, Nouv. «Dict. salase. [Sept. 1804—Sept. 1805], (im

nat. 24(Tab.) : 176 Sonnini’s Buffon) Hist. nat.
gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 18: 228
(monotypical)

oe « © e©

(c) under ‘‘ suspension of the rules ’’ to set aside all type designations for
the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus

(28) Bethylus Latreille, [1802— Omalus fuscicornis Jurine, 1807,
1803], (4m Sonnini’s Buf- Nouv. Méth. class. Hyménoft. :
fon) Hist. nat. gén. partic. 301
Crust. Ins. 33 315

(d) under “‘ suspension of the rules’’ to place on the Official List of
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

10. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraphs 25
(Dryinus Latreille) and 27 (Bethylus Latreille) of the report which
at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th Septem-
ber 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
6) unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress

6 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case

are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 27-30.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 205

of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted
at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

Ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.’ In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
case of the names specified in paragraph 9 above, no communica-
tion of any kind has been received by the International Com-
mission objecting to the issue of an Ofznion in the terms proposed.

12. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

13. The present Ofini10n was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the above Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution

7 See Declaration 5.

206 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to certain of the provisions of the present Opinion as set out
in the summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the name Bethylus Latreille
dealt with in the present Opinion has been given to two or more
of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco.
in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and every the
powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of holding the
said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofimion Number One
Hundred and Fifty Three (Opinion 153) of the said Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this fourteenth day of April, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature. f3

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

“

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 153. 207

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and

_(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in
taxonomic theory and practice.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g (which have never
previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the original issue
of which is now out of print). Parts 1-12 (containing Declarations
I-9 and Opinions 1-3) have now been published.

Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134.
Parts 1-25 (containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155)
have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are
_ given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other
Parts will be published shortly.

208 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Researeh
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is coneerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclatie used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

x Jt
aay

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by 7
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 24. Pp. 209-226.

OPINION 154

On the status of the names Phaneroptera
Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Class
Insecta, Order Orthoptera)

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944

Price five shillings

_ Issued 12th July, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKT (Poland).

(vacant) .*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). . ou
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold FE. VOKES (Us .4.).

Secretariat of the Commission: -
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION 154.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES PHANEROPTERA SER-
VILLE, 1831, AND TYLOPSIS FIEBER, 1853 (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER ORTHOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Gryllus falcata
Poda, 1761, is hereby designated as the type of Phaneroptera
Serville, 1831. The;name Phaneroptera Serville with the type
indicated above, and the name Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, with type
- Locusta lilifolia Fabricius, 1793 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera),
are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
as Names Nos. 598 and 599.

fn STATEMENT. OF THE CASE.

Both Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, and Tylopsis Fieber, 1853,
were included in the long list of generic names drawn from many
Phyla and Classes dealt with in the paper published in 1915 by
Commissioner K. Apstein under the title “ Nomina conservanda.
Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezalisten herausgegeben von Prof.
C. Apstein, Berlin’’ (StizBer. Ges. naturf. Fr. Berl. 1915 (5):
IIg-202). Commissioner Apstein proposed that these two names
should be treated as ‘“‘ nomina conservanda ”’ (1.e. that they should
be placed on the Official List) and that “ falcata F., 1793’ should
be declared to be the type of Phaneroptera Serville and that
“ lilufola [sic], F., 1793’ should be declared to be the type of
Tylopsis Fieber.

II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. Commissioner Apstein communicated his list to the Com-
mission in the course of 1915 and in December of that year the
Secretary to the Commission suggested that the most satisfactory
way of dealing with this proposal would be to refer the various
portions of which it was made up to special advisory committees
on the nomenclature of the groups concerned. This course was
adopted but, as was inevitable, the reports from the committees
were a long time in coming in. In 1922, the Commission agreed
to render an Opinion (Opinion 74), in which they pointed out that
they had no power to adopt en bloc the list submitted by Com-

212 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

missioner Apstein but indicated that they were prepared “ to
consider names separately upon presentation of reasonably
complete evidence ”’.

3. In 1923 (in a letter dated 4th May) Dr. A. N. Caudell of the
United Statés National Museum, who (at the request of the
International Commission) had been studying the generic names
in the Orthoptera included in Commissioner Apstein’s list, sub-
mitted the following proposal as regards Phaneroptera Serville :—

I herewith transmit for official decision by the International Com-
mission the matter of genotype of the orthopterous genus Phaneroptera
of Serville. This genus was established by Serville in 1831, Ann.
Sci. Nat., vol. xxii, p. 138, with two species originally included, Locusta
lilifolia Fabricius and Locusta curvicauda DeGeer. No genotype was
selected by the author, Serville, nor was such a selection made until
1906, when W. F. Kirby, Syn. Cat. Ovth., vol. ii, p. 434, selected the
Gryllus falcatus of Poda?1 as the type of Phanevopiera. Deeming this
selection of falcatus, a species the name of which was not mentioned in
the original publication of Phaneropteva, as unwarranted, the present
writer, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sct., vol. xi, p. 487, 1921, selected the species
Locusta curvicauda DeGeer as the genotype of Phaneroptera. My reasons
are set forth in my article cited but I may repeat here that both included
species, lilifolia and curvicauda, had been removed prior to the citing of
any genotype for Phaneroptera, lilifolia having become the genotype of
the monobasic genus Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, and curvicauda the genotype
of Scudderia Stal, 1873, also a monobasic genus. By the rules of your
Commission the removal of one of the two included species from Phanero-
pteva, through its selection as the type of another genus, limits the remain-
ing species as the type of the old genus. Thus curvicauda became auto-
matically the type of Phaneroptera when liifolia was eliminated, thus
my designation.

But there is dispute, some maintaining that falcatus Poda is the type
of Phaneropteva, this view being based upon the fact that Serville,
Orthoptéves, p. 420, footnote, 1839, published the fact that he had mis-
determined the species Locusta lilifolia of Fabricius, the species he had
being really Gryllus falcatus Poda, credited however by him at this
reference to Carpentier or Scopoli.

This matter seems to me to be one of a genus based on a misidentifica-
tion and is really covered by Opinion 65 of your Commission, though the
conditions show a shade of difference from those there discussed. But
the arguments there considered and which lead up to the decision rendered,
apply here with equal strength. Thus it would seem that the decision
ought to be the same, that is that the type of a polybasic genus auto-
matically selected, by the elimination of other eligibles by removal as
genotypes of other genera * should stand regardless of misidentification.
It would appear that to deny correction in one case and permit it in
another might be considered absurd. And to permit correction in the
case of the genotype of the bibasic, or polybasic, genus would create all
the confusion that would arise by doing the same in the case of the

1 This name was published by Poda as Gryllus falcata.

2 Opinion 6, which is the only Opinion which deals with this type of case,
is expressly limited to genera published prior to rst January 1931 with only
two originally included species, neither of which is designated as the type
by the originalauthor. That Opinion has no bearing upon genera originally
published with three or more species.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 213

monobasic genus. My remarks on page 153? of the Opinion 65 bear
directly on the point.

The references to literature bearing on this matter are as follows:

Most. Senville, Any. Sel, Nal. vol. xxi, ps 158.
(erects genus Phaneropteva)

1839. Serville, Ovthoptéves, p. 420, footnote.
(corrects determination of lilifolia)

1906. Kirby, Syn. Cat. Ovth., vol. ii, p. 434.
(cites falcata as genotype of Phaneroptera)

1921. Caudell, Journ. Wash. Acad. Sci., vol. xi, p. 487.
(cites curvicauda as genotype of Phaneroptera)

——. Internat. Commission, Opinion No. 65, and discussion by
various authors.

4. On receipt of Dr. Caudell’s letter, Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary
to the Commission, submitted this case to the Committee on
Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington, with
a request that that body would furnish him with its opinion from
the standpoint of entomology. In making this request, Dr.
Stiles furnished the Committee with the following preliminary
memorandum that he had prepared for communication to the
International Commission :— 2

Preliminary memorandum prepared by Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Attention is invited to Opinion 65 which states that ‘“ The Com-.
mission is of the opinion that as a specimen is the type of a species, so a
species is the type of a genus, and hence that when an author names a
particular species as type of a new genus it is to be assumed that it has
been correctly determined. If a case should present itself in which it
appears that an author has based his genus upon certain definite speci-
mens rather than upon a species it should be submitted to the Com-
mission for consideration.”

The premises presented to the Commission do not show that Serville,
1831, based his genus upon any particular specimens but rather upon
two species, namely, Phanervopteva lilifolia (Fabricius) from the suburbs of
Paris and P. curvicauda (DeGeer) from Pennsylvania. In 1839, p. 420,
Serville recognised that P. lilifolia, from his point of view of 1831, was a
composite species, namely P. falcata (syn. lilifolia of 1831 pars) and P.
hilifolia (1793, restr.). The Secretary has been unable to trace P.
curvicauda in 1839. Any restricted unit of the two original species is

‘available as type.

According to the premises there are three restricted original units from
the standpoint of Serville, 1839, namely falcata, lilifolia and curvicauda.

According to the premises also, Fieber, 1853, took hhfolia sensu
stvicto as type of Tylopsis and Stal, 1873, took curvicauda as type of
Scudderia. In neither case was the original genus Phaneropteva rendered
monotypic in the sense of Opinion 6, International Commission. Accord-
ingly, so far as the premises have been presented to the Commission,
Kirby, 1906, was at liberty to select any of the two original (1831),
namely three restricted (1839), species as type. He accepted Serville’s
(1839) identification of falcata with lilifolia pars and definitely designated
this unit as genotype. Accordingly, lifolia pars of Serville from the

3 See Smithson. misc. Coll. 2256 ; 153, published in March ror4.

214. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

suburbs of Paris (= a subjective synonym of falcata Poda, 1761) is the
type of Phaneroptera, provided the premises are correct that this (1906)
was the first definite designation of genotype.

5. In accordance with Dr. Stiles’s request, this matter was duly
considered by the Committee of the Entomological Society of
Washington, whose conclusions were embodied in a document
entitled Opinion 5 of that Committee) bearing the date 25th
October 1923 and signed by S. A. Rohwer (by whom it was stated
to have been drafted), A. C. Baker, and Carl Heinrich. This
document reads as follows :—

The type of Phaneroptera Serville

Summary.—From the evidence submitted it is evident that Serville
in 1831 wrongly applied a Fabrician name to the first species he placed
in the genus Phaneropteva and that his genus included two species only
(lilifolia Serville =) falcata Scopoli and curvicauda DeGeer. Falcata
Scopoli was therefore correctly selected as the genotype by Kirby in
1906. In our judgment Opinion 65. has no bearing on this case.

Statement of case.—Summary by this committee.

Serville in 1831 described the genus Phaneropteva and included two

Species : :

1. Phaneroptera lilifolia (Fabr.) = (Locusta lilifola Fabr.). En-
viron de Paris.

2. Phaneroptera curvicauda eee = (Locusta curvicauda DeGeer)
Pennsylvania.

No mention is made of a genotype nor is there any statement which
would lead one to assume that the identification of either of the species
is incorrect. In 1839, however, Serville says, ‘‘ It is an error on my part
to have believed that the unique Phanevopteva inhabiting the vicinity of
Paris was the Locusta lilifolia of Fabr.’”’ and he goes on to say that it was
Gryllus falcatus instead.

In 1853 Fieber used Locusta lilifolia Fabr. (not the misidentification of
the species of Serville of 1831) as the single species, hence the type, for his
genus Tylopsis. In 1873 Stal used (and removed from the genus
Phaneropteva) Locusta curvicauda DeGeer as the single species, hence the
type for his genus Scudderia. In 1906 W. F. Kirby named Gvryllus
falcatus (= Locusta lilifolia Serville, 1831 (nec Fabr.) as pointed out by
Serville (1839)) as the type of the genus Phaneroptera Serville. In 1921
Caudell (believing that Kirby’s type citation of 1906 was incorrect) cited
Locusta curvicauda DeGeer as the type of Phaneroptera.*

Discussion.—Inasmuch as Serville neither in 1831 nor 1839 designates
any species as the genotype, Opinion 65 cannot be said to cover this
case. The first author to designate a genotype for the genus Phanero-
pteva was Kirby, in 1906, and at this time he had an opportunity to
select either (lilifolia Serville (not Fabr.) =) falcatus Scopoli or curvicauda
DeGeer. Curvicauda DeGeer had in 1873 been removed from the genus
and Kirby wisely selected falcatus as the type of Phanevopteva. The
inclusion of the name falcatus is based on Serville’s correction, 1839,
where he definitely states that the species he had referred to as lilifolia

4 At this point the Committee quoted in full (i) the original application
to the International Commission by Dr. Caudell (see paragraph 3 above)
and (11) the preliminary memorandum prepared by Dr. Stiles (see paragraph
4 above).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 215

in 1831 is falcata Scopoli. From Serville’s correction in 1839 it is

evident that he had only two species before him in 1831, and that insofar

as the species which he called lilifolia, his conception of the genus was
founded on specimens. These specimens came from the environs of

Paris and represent the species falcatus.

We cannot agree with the second sentence of paragraph two of the

above cited circular letter ® as we find no evidence that Serville in 1839

‘says his lilifolia of 1831 1s a composite species. He only states his
identification of ilifolia in 1831 was wrong. Nor can we agree with the
third paragraph of circular 66 ®* in saying that according to the standpoint
of Serville, 1839, there were three units, namely falcata, llfolia and
curvicauda in the genus. Serville does not admit lilifolia to be in the
genus in 1839 and there is nothing to indicate that he was dealing with
more than two species, falcata and curvicauda. To admit the composite
species idea and to assume that in the composite you still have the true
species is, it seems to us, opening the door to a variety of opinions. It
is a well-recognised fact that as our knowledge in systematic work has
advanced there has been a closer and closer definition of species and
because of this many of the species of the old writers have been divided.
Such a division of a species has not, however, been made in this case.

We presented this entire case again to Mr. Caudell for consideration
and he submits the following additional data in a letter to Rohwer dated

une’ 7, 1923):

I can but deplore a decision permitting a third species, and one not mentioned
among those originally included, being cited as the type of a bibasic genus while
Opinion 65 prohibits a second species being similarly cited as the type of a mono-
basic genus.® It is illogical.

If the mere citing of a locality for included species of a genus, as in the case of
lihifoha in the genus Phaneroptera, throws said genus without the range of Opinion
65 of the International Commission and makes it a case referable to the Commission

for separate decision, then I would call attention to the probability that scarcely
one old genus out of ten will come under Opinion 65, the other ninety percent
coming under the heading of those to be referred to the Commission for separate
decision. It is doubtful if the Commission intended to consider the mere citing of
localities as evidence that the genus was based on specimens rather than on species,
thus making it necessary to render separate decisions on most older genera.

In the briefs on this matter undue stress is laid upon the statement of Serville
in 1839, eight years after the establishment of the genus Phaneroptera, that an error
of determination was concerned in the included species. The original citation is
the pertinent one, and subsequent treatment by the author of a genus should carry
no more weight, nomenclatorially, than if by any other person.

We therefore recommend that the Commission in reviewing this case
accept Serville’s statement in 1839 as correcting an error and accept the
citation of falcata as the type of the genus, validated from Kirby’s
selection in 1906.

6. The documents quoted in paragraphs 3, 4, and 5 above
were communicated to the members of the Commission by Dr.

5 The document here referred to is the preliminary memorandum by Dr.
Stiles quoted in paragraph 4 above. In sending that.document to the
Committee, Dr. Stiles had made it clear that it was his intention to include
it in a circular letter to the International Commission. At the time Dr.
Stiles had provisionally assigned the number “66” to this circular.
Actually, the number under which it was ultimately issued was 83.

6 Opinion 65 was not intended to do more than lay down a presumption
and establish a procedure for dealing with doubtful cases. For the subse-.
quent elaboration of the question dealt with in Opinion 65, see Official
Record of Proceedings of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clatuve, Lisbon Session, 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23)
(1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 23-25) and Opinion 168.

216 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Stiles in a circular letter (C.L, 83) dated May 109247) Dir "Stiles
reminded the Commission that “‘ cases of mistaken determination
such as is before the Commission in Phaneroptera have given us no
end of trouble in years past ’’ and invited from the Commissioners
“an expression of opinion in this case so that he [Dr. Stiles] may
tabulate the views ”’ before a final vote was taken.

7. In March 1925, Dr. Stiles reported to the Commission (in
circular letter 96) the following views that had been expressed on
this question by individual Commissioners in the light of the
documents circulated for their consideration in circular letter 83 :—

(i) Apstein: “falcata Typus des Genus Phaneroptera ist.”’
(ii) Handlirsch: “ The type species is falcata Poda.”’
(iii) Horvath: ‘“‘ The genotype of Phaneroptera Srv. is Gryllus
falcatus Poda” (= Phaneroptera lilifolia Serv. nec. Fabr.).”’
(iv) Jordan, K.: “‘ The unanimous opinion of the British Entom.
Committee on Nomenclature is this: a genus is based on
species, not on names; the genotype is a species, not a name.
‘“ Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, was based on two insects;
Kirby in 1906 was at liberty to select one of the two as
genotype, there being no prior selection. He selected the
species erroneously identified by Serville as lilifolia F. The
correct name of this species is falcata Poda. Not the letters
falcata are the genotype of Phaneroptera, but the insect
to which this name is applied.”’
(v) Kolbe: “Ich halte es fiir gut, die genotypen Species in
folgender Weisse zu verteilen.
“1. Phaneroptera Serv., 1831, mit falcata Poda.
“2. Tylopsis Fieb., 1853, mit lalifolia F.
| “3. Scudderia Stal, 1873, mit curvicauda De Geer.”
(vi) Monticelli: “‘ The typical species of Phaneroptera is falcata

»Poday.
(vil) Skinner: “‘ The type should be Gryllus falcatus Poda.”’ 7
(vill) Bather: “‘ curvicauda De Geer became automatically the

type of Phaneroptera when lilifolia was eliminated by Fieber,
1853, as type of Tylopsis.

“ Treating this question purely in its legal aspect, i.e. by
the letter of the law, I hold that we must first inquire what
was the position in 1831 and the seven succeeding years.
Having been unable to look up the original literature, I take
the premises of the circular letter, and find that a genus

” For the correct form of this name as published by Poda, see footnote 1.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 217

existed with two genosyntypes, Locusta lilifolia Fabricius
and L. curvicauda De Geer. There was (as I understand)
nothing to suggest any misidentification to the minds of
contemporary readers; at any rate Serville himself did not
suggest it. Therefore the genoholotype of Phaneroptera
must be one of those two species. Serville in 1839 did not
select a genotype, and what he then said may have elucidated
his intention but could not alter the legal situation. We are
bound in these cases not by what an author means to say
or might have said, but by what he actually said. The
next step was the removal of Phaneroptera lilifolia (Fabr.)
as genotype of Tylopsis by Fieber in 1853, leaving Phanero-
plera curvicauda (De Geer) as genoholotype of Phanero-
ptera. These facts remain unaffected by any subsequent
action, but have as corollary that Scudderia Stal was ab
mitio a synonym of Phaneroptera, and that a new generic
name was ex hypothesi required for Gryllus falcatus Poda *—
and, for all I- know, still is required.”’

In the light of the foregoing preliminary expressions of opinion
by Commissioners, Dr. Stiles then called upon the Commission to
vote on the question of the type of the genus Phaneroptera.

8. By March 1927, eight (8) Commissioners (Apstein; Neveu-
Lemaire; Handlirsch; Horvath; Jordan, D. S.; Jordan, K.;
Monticelli ; Stiles) had voted in favour of the issue of an Opinion
declaring that Grvyllus falcata Poda, 1761, was the type of Phanero-
ptera Serville, 1831; two (2) Commissioners (Bather; Warren)
had voted in favour of the issue of an Opinion declaring Locusta
curvicauda De Geer, 1773, to be the type of that genus; and two
(2) Commissioners had expressed themselves as undecided. At
this time the Commission was beginning to consider the procedure
to be adopted at their meeting due to be held at Budapest later
in that year. In notifying to the Commission the foregoing
particulars regarding the state of the voting in this case, Dr. Stiles
suggested that ‘“‘ Commissioners Handlirsch and Neveu-Lemaire
consider and report on this case at Budapest ”’.

g. At the first meeting of the Budapest Session held on 29th
August, 1927, the Commission (Budapest Session, 1st Meeting,
Conclusion g) assigned various outstanding propositions to ad hoc
committees for examination and report. Under this procedure,
the case of Phaneroptera Serville was referred to a special com-
mittee consisting of Commissioner Karl Jordan (Conclusion 9(j)).

218 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

10. Commissioner Jordan came to the conclusion that the most
satisfactory way of dealing with this case would be to refer it to
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature for
consideration and report. In 1929, the International Commission
decided to invite the International Committee to consider also the
whole of the proposals relating to the generic names contained in
the list submitted by Commissioner Apstein in 1935 (paragraph 1
above), together with a report on some of the names in question
that had been furnished to the Commission by Dr. A. N. Caudell
and an additional list of names (including Phaneroptera Serville)
submitted to the Commission by Commissioner A. Handlirsch in
1929. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature were unable to dispose of the considerable amount of
preliminary work in time to permit of their formulating a report
on the questions at issue at their meeting held in Paris during
the Fifth International Congress of Entomology. It was necessary
therefore for the Committee to adjourn the matter for final
consideration ‘at their meeting to be held at Madrid in 1935. |

11. When the International Committee met at Madrid in the
second week of September 1935, one of the first problems to which
they addressed themselves was that of the type of the genus
Phaneroptera Serville. After careful consideration, the Inter-
national Committee came to the conclusion that it was desirable
that Gryllus falcata Poda, 1761, the species which was generally
recognised as the type of Phaneroptera Serville, should be cate-
gorically declared to be the type of that genus. The International
Committee considered that the most satisfactory way of disposing
of this case would be for the International Commission to make
use of their plenary powers to declare under suspension of the
rules that the type of Phaneroptera Serville was Gryllus falcata
Poda, on the ground that the strict application of the rules in this
case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.
The International Committee accordingly adopted a resolution in
this sense for submission to the International Commission as their
report in this case. At the same time, the Committee agreed to
recommend the International Commission to add the name
Phaneroptera Serville, so validated, to the Official List of Generic
Names, together with the name Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (type:
Locusta lilifoia Fabricius, 1793).

12. These and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held
at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 219

Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th
September 1935.

III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

13. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes.
In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting
held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g), that immediate consideration
should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that,
in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision
could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission
should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as
might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in
so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “ under sus-
pension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement
procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question should
be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the con-
clusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be
rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period
of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was
despatched to: the prescribed journals for publication. The case
of the genus Phaneroptera Serville was one of the cases in question
and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the
above procedure.

14. This case was considered by the International Commission
at their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusions 19 and 20), when the Com-
mission agreed :—

as regards the name Phaneroptera Serville (Conclusion 10)

(a) to “‘ suspend the rules ”’ in the case e the generic name Phaneroptera
Serville, 1831 (Aun. Sci. nat. 22: ;

(b) in virtue of (a) above, to a nde i name Phaneroptera Serville,
1831, and to declare its type to be Gryllus falcata Poda, 1761, Ins.
Mus. graec. : 52;

220 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(c) to place the generic name Phanervoptera Serville, 1831, validated as in
(b) above and with the type there specified, on the Official List of
Generic Names; and

(d) to render an Opinion in the sense of (a) to (c) above.

as regards the name Tylopsis Fieber (Conclusion 20) §

to render an Opinion placing on the Official List of Generic Names the
under-mentioned twenty-two ® nomenclatorially available generic names
in the Orthoptera, with the types indicated, each of which has been duly
designated in accordance with the provisions of the Code :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(22) “Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, Lotos Locusta lifolia Fabricius, 1793,
3: 172 | Ent. syst. 2: 36
(monotypical)

15. The foregoing decisions in regard to the name Phaneroptera
Serville were embodied in paragraph 26 of the report which at
their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September
1935, the Commission unanimously agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology. The decision in regard to the name Tylopsis
Fieber was embodied in paragraph 24 of the same report.

16. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) :—

that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the

new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to

make such arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear
to them necessary or expedient :—

(1) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ;

(ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from
time to time by the Commission ;

(i11) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their

Lisbon Session ;

) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the
Commission; and generally
(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

(iv

17. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved
by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the
International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day.
It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
8 Only those portions of Conclusion 20 which relate to the present case

are here quoted. For the full text of this Conclusion see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 17-19.

® The other twenty-one generic names here slot e to have since been
dealt with in Opinion 149.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION 154. 221

of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted
at the Concilium Plenum held on Saturday, 21st September 1935,
the last day of the Congress.

18. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
13 above), the case of Phaneroptera Serville was duly advertised
in 1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at
Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress
conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to
any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity.’ In the period that has elapsed since
the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension
of the rules in the case of Phaneroptera Serville, one communica-
tion only has been addressed to the Commission raising certain
objections to the suspension of the rules in this case. This com-
munication, which was dated 1st March 1937 and bore the signa-
ture of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in the
name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington. The passage in that document relating
to Phaneroptera Serville reads as follows :—

This generic name was originally published with two included species,
Locusta hlifola F. and L. curvicauda Degeer. The first type designation
was by Kirby, 1906 (Syn. Cat. Orthop. 2: 434) who named Gryllus fal-
catus Poda !! type as he considered Serville’s lilifolia to be a misidentifica-
tion for falcatus. It appears, however, that, at least in the absence of con-
clusive evidence that the author based his names upon certain definite
Specimens, the species originally included must be presumed to have been
correctly identified. Kirby’s designation of a species not originally
included is therefore invaid; and curvicauda Degeer, definitely named
type of Phaneroptera by Caudell, 1921 (Jour. Wash. Acad. Sci., vol. 11:
487), must be considered type of the genus under the Rules. In the
publication just cited Caudell properly suppressed Scudderia Stal, 1873,
as a Synonym of Phaneropieva since both have the same genotype,
Locusta curvicauda Degeer. At the same time he proposed a new generic
name Anerota, with Gryllus falcatus Poda 11 as type, for the group of
species remaining in Phaneroptera without valid generic assignment. All
this, which was done 15 years ago, is in accord with the International
Rules. No change in super generic names is involved and no serious

_ confusion has resulted from Caudell’s action. There appears to be no
sound reason, therefore, for setting aside the rules in this case and
designation as type of Phaneropiera a species not originally included.

10 See Declaration 5.

‘1 For the correct form of this name as paiiohed by Poda, see footnote 1.

12 For the text of the more detailed communication previously received
from the same source containing a recommendation in the opposite sense,
see paragraph 5 above.

222 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

19. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of
the document from which the above is an extract were com-
municated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but
since that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself
as being in agreement with the representations contained therein.

20. The representations in regard to the case of Phaneroptera
Serville referred to in paragraphs 18 and 19 above were considered
at the Plenary Conference between the President of the Com-
mission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in London
on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution adopted
by the Commission at their meeting held on 18th September 1935
(for the text of which see paragraph 16 above). The Conference
(Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting, Conclusion 11) :—

(a) took note that within the twelve months following the advertise-
ment of the action proposed, representations had been received from
the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of
Washington in regard to the names Locusta Linnaeus 1° and Phanero-
ptera Serville ;

(b) took note that, although a copy of the communication referred to
above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission
immediately upon its receipt, no member of the Commission had
expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations
contained therein ;

(c) agreed that the communication referred to in (a) above brought for-
ward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nemenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour
of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolu-
tions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress
of Entomology at Madrid in the same year ;

(d) agreed that, in view of (b) and (c) above, the proper course for the
present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the
decision set out in paragraph 26 of the report of their Lisbon Session
in regard to the names Locusta Linnaeus and Phaneroptera Serville
and therefore that Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in
the sense indicated in the said paragraph of the Commission’s report
that had been approved and adopted by the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st
September 1935.

21. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

13 The case of Locusta Linnaeus has since been dealt with in Opinion 158.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 223

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier wice Handlirsch; Arndt’ vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

22. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session
has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion
nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement
with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this
matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not
present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not
vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

iy -AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to certain of the provisions of the present Opimion; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the name Phaneropiera Serville
dealt with in the present Opznion has been given to two or more
of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its Meeting held in Monaco
in March 1913, and |

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Ofznion in the terms
of the present Opinion :

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRaNcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-

224 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Fifty Four (Opinion 154) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fifteenth day of April, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 154. 225

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in Cer to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue
of which is now out of print). Parts 1-12 (containing Declarations
I-9 and Opinions 1-3) have now been published.

Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134.
Parts 1-25 (containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155)
have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are
given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other
Parts will be published shortly.

226 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenclature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

} 1.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 25. Pp. 227-238.

OPINION 155

On the status of the names Callimome Spinola,

1811, Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus

Dalman, 1820 (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno-
ptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944
Price three shillings

Issued 12th July, 1944

Ee macnn tie
hl ag? a >

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

(vacant) .*

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Dr. Frederick CHAPMAN (Australia).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U:S.A.). ‘

Secretariat of the Commission : | ®
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

* This vacancy was caused by the death on 24th January, 1941, of Dr.
Charles Wardell STILES (U.S.A.), Vice-President of the Commission and
former Secretary to the Commission (1897-1935).

OPINION 155.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES C4ALLIMOME SPINOLA,
1811, MISOCAMPE LATREILLE, 1818, AND TORYMUS DAL-
MAN, 1820 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Callimome Spinola, 1811 and (ii) the name Misocampe Latreille,
1818, are suppressed ; (iii) all existing type designations for
Torymus Dalman, 1820, are set aside; and (iv) Ichneumon
bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of
Torymus Dalman. The name Torymus Dalman, with the type
indicated above (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), is hereby
added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name
No. 600.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE,

Attention was first drawn by Professor James Chester Bradley
in 1919 to the serious difficulties that would arise if the rules were
strictly applied to a number of well-known generic names in the
Order Hymenoptera. These difficulties led Professor Chester
Bradley to consult the leading systematic workers in the Hymeno-
ptera in all countries in regard to the action to be taken as regards
the names in question. As the result of these consultations, the
following petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59
other Hymenopterists was submitted to the International
Commission :—

The case of Torvymus versus Callimome

Callumome Spinola, 1811, Misocampus 1 Latr., 1817,1 and Torymus
Dalman, 1820, each have as type the species Ichnewmon bedeguaris
L. Callimome was adopted by some writers, chiefly English and during
the first half of the 19th century; Misocampus 1 was never adopted by

1 There is no such name as Misocampus. The name here referred to is
Misocampe which was published by Latreille (Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat.
(ed. 2) 21: 213) in 1818 and not in 1817 as stated in the petition. It is
clear that this was intended by Latreille as a latinised spelling and not as
a French form of the name since, as pointed out by Dr. O. W. Richards
(im litt.), Latreille on page 217 referred to what he called Misocampe
bedeguaris and gave both names in italics. The reference to the name
‘“ Misocampus Latreille’”’ in the present petition is presumably derived
from Dalla Torre (1898, Cat. Hymenopt. 5: 297), who gave the reference
“ Misocampus Latreille, Nouv. dict. hist. nat. Ed. 2a. 1817 p. ? .”

230 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

authors other than Latreille, and Torymus came into general use, becoming
type of the family TORYMIDAE. -

' Gahan and Fagan (1914) called attention to the correct use of Calli-
mome.

In order to obviate the confusion incident to change of a long-established
family name, the undersigned wish to ask the Commission to determine
whether in their judgment it would be appropriate to reject Callimome
and Misocampus,1 validating Torymus, and if so take the following
action, to wit: :

1. to suspend the rules in the cases of the genera Callimome Spinola,
1811, Misocampus 1 Latr., 1817,1 and Torymus Dalman, 1820;

2. to permanently reject Callimome Spinola, 1811, and Misocampus }
Latr.; ©8173

3. to validate Torymus Dalman, type Ichneumon bedeguaris L.’%;

4. to place on the Official List of Generic Names, Torymus Dalman,
1820, type Ichneumon bedeguaris L., a common parasite of the
mossy rose-gall wasp, for the genus of chalcid-wasps, ordinarily
known by that name.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-
mission :—

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns {

G. Grandi - A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin

T. H. Frison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards

A. R: Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy

H. H. Ross * G. Arnold V. SL. Bate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley,

W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

Gi lve H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * A. C. Kinsey * O. Vogt fT

E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +

A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl R. Kruger tf

W,. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellent |

R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams +

H. von Ihering { A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht f
A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. N. Kuznezev-
H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky +

H. Bischoff W. V. Balout * F, E. Lutz

L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

* In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied >
the points involved in the particular case.

+ Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not included in his reply.

¢t Deceased.

II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 231

Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recommenda-
tions of the International Committee on Entomological einen:
clature would be available.

5. This and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium
Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

* i

TIL. —THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION.

6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published,
had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the
illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for
other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided
at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the
Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at
which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of
the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session
to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this
decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking
decisions “‘ under suspension. of the rules’”’ in cases where the
prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with,
the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might
be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and
that no Ofimion should be rendered and published thereon until
after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which
the said advertisement was dispatched to the prescribed journals

232 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

for publication. The case of the names Callimome Spinola, 1811,
Misocampe Latreille, 1818, and Torymus Dalman, 1820, was
among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under
the above procedure.

@: Werle (ee) ve

(b) under “‘ suspension of the rules ’’ permanently to reject the following
generic names :—
(14) Callimome Spinola, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat. Paris 17 (98) : 148
(15) Misocampe Latreille, 1818, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 21: 213
(c) under “ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations
for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(31) Torymus Dalman, 1820, K. Ichneumon bedeguaris Linnaeus
Vet. Ac. Handl. 1820 (1) : 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 567
125 & 135

Ci On One (0% AD

(d) under “ suspension of the rules” to place on the Official List of
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology.

g. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session,
5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) :—

that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and the
new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be authorised to
make such arrangements, and to take such other action, as ec appear
to them necessary or expedient :—

(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ; ~

(ii) to secure the due ‘publication of the Opinions agreed upon from
time to time by the Commission ;

* Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 27-30.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 233

(iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their
Lisbon Session ;
(iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-
mission; and generally
(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.
10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted
at the Concilium Plenum of the Congress held on the afternoon
of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress.
ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.? In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, one com-
munication only has been addressed to the Commission raising
objection to the suspension of the rules in this case. This com-
munication, which was dated 1st March 1937, and bore the sig-
nature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in
the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington. The passage in that document relating
to the present case reads as follows :—

The case of Torymus Dalman, 1820

Callumome Spinola, 1811, and Torymus Dalman, 1820, are isogenotypic,
Ichneumon bedeguaris L. being the type of both. Of the species listed
in Dalla Torre’s ‘“‘ Catalogus Hymenopterorum’’, 1900, more were origin-
ally described in Callimome than in Torymus, and of the references since
that date many more employ the former than the latter of these names.
The name Callimome and the accompanying family name CALLIMONIDAE
[sic] are well established and accepted by workers in the group both in
Europe and America. There is no sound reason whatever for suspension
of the rules in this case and placement of Torymus on the Official List of
Generic Names.

3 See Declaration 5.

234 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

12. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of
the document from which the above is an extract were com-
municated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but
since that date no member of the Commission has expressed him-
self as being in agreement with the representations contained
therein.

13. The representations set out in paragraph II above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of
the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in
London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution
adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on
18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9
above). The Plenary Conference (Plenary Conference, Ist
Meeting, Conclusion 9) * :—

(b) examined the communications that had been received during ve
prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :—

eo © « « 6 ©

(vi) Torymus Dalman, 1820
from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington ;

ee © © «© «

(c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to in
(b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission
immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Commission had
expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representa-
tions contained therein ;

(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought
forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in
favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them
by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in
resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year;

(e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the
present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions
in this matter reached by the International Commission at their
Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that
Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated
in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by
that Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st
September 1935.

4 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 76-77.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 235 ©

14. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Isradley vee Stone: Beier vee. Wandlirsch: Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

15. [he present Ofimion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session
has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion
nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement
with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this
matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :— |

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opimion; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

236 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Fifty Five (Opinion 155) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opzmion.

Done in London, this fourth day of May, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 155. 237

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secre-
tary with, zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin
under (a) above: and

(c)- papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in
taxonomic theory and practice.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Volume 1 will contain Declarations 1-g (which have never
previously been published) and Ofimions 1-133 (the original issue
of which is now out of print). Parts 1-12 (containing Declarations
I-g and Opinions 1-3) have now been published.

Volume 2 commences with Declaration 10 and Opinion 134.
Parts 1-25 (containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-155)
have so far been published. The titles of these Opinions are
given on the wrappers to Parts 1 and 2 of the Bulletin. Other
Parts will be published shortly.

238 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

AN URGENT APPEAL FOR A FUND OF £1800 TO
ENABLE THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION TO
CONTINUE ITS WORK

The International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
urgently appeal for grants to the above Fund to Museums, Research
Institutes and other Institutions concerned with any branch of
zoology ; to Learned Societies and Associations concerned with
any aspect of zoology ; to Institutions and Learned Societies in
the fields of Agriculture, Horticulture, Medicine and Veterinary
Science, all of whom have a direct interest in that portion of
the work of the Commission which is concerned with the stabilisa-
tion of Zoological Nomenelature ; to University and other Depart-
ments engaged in the teaching of zoology as being directly interested
to secure stability in the scientific nomenclature used in biological
text-books ; and to every individual zoologist who may be in a
position to contribute to the funds of the Commission. Full
particulars of the purposes for which the above Fund is required are
given in Part 2 of the Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuNGAY, SUFFOLK.

vi/CT.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
®

VOLUME 2. Part 26. Pp. 239-250.

OPINION 156

Suspension of the rules for Vanessa Fabricius,
1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1944

| Price three shillings

Issued 17th October, 1944

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom),
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946 °

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dit Norman Ky STOLE (UeSe4,):

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr, Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission),
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Lodovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James Lp PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr tlarold .E; VOKES (U:S2A°):

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W: 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

gees Se URS -
a ee
on TA KY BD ~—
On TAA ILE LF Cea
Pt ic iN RPURE Bt . ) Ny
FO OD IGG > & ~~
e “% Yk tis ff f g
oc f

OPINION 156.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR VANESSA FABRICIUS,
1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared
that page precedence shall not be invoked to secure for Cynthia
Fabricius 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) over Vanessa
Fabricius, 1807. Vanessa Fabricius, with type Papilio atalanta
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology as Name No. 601.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 23rd February 1934, in
which the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London
drew attention to the conclusions reached by the Lepidoptera
Sub-Committee 1 of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomen-
clature,? regarding the generic names of certain of the British
Lepidoptera, in regard to which both the Lepidoptera Sub-
Committee and the Committee on Generic Nomenclature were of
the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity. The Society
enclosed a copy of the Report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee
(published that day as Part 2 of the Generic Names of British
Insects), to which was attached a paper by Commissioner Francis
Hemming, in which was given a full statement in regard to each
of the names in question. One of these names was Vanessa
Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera, Family NYMPHALIDAE).

2. The following is an extract from the paper referred to above
of the passage relating to this genus :—

VANESSA Fabricius
Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Imsektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281.
Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Avach. Ins. : 440.
TYPE (fixed by Latreille) = Papilho atalania Linnaeus, 1758.

1 This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis
Hemming (Chaivman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams.

2 This Committee was then composed as follows :—Sir Guy Marshall
(Chaiyman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. O. W. Richards,
Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary),

242 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

I have included among the synonyms of Vanessa Fabricius the name
Cynthia Fabricius, which on a strict application of the International Code
should take precedence of Vanessa Fabricius. Nomenclatorially, both
Vanessa Fabricius and Cynthia Fabricius are valid names, but as their
respective types (Papilio atalanta Linnaeus and Papilio cardui Linnaeus)
are undoubtedly congeneric, one must sink as a synonym of the other.
Both were described by Fabricius in the same paper and the descriptions
of both were printed on the same page. The genera enumerated by Fabri-
cius were numbered consecutively and Cynthia Fabricius was number I1,
while Vanessa Fabricius was number 12. Thus on the principle of page
priority, Vanessa Fabricius should fall to Cynthia Fabricius.

There are, however, very strong reasons against such an arrangement.
The name Vanessa Fabricius, perhaps more than any other butterfly
generic name, has throughout its history been applied to the same group of
species. Further, these are some of the commonest and most widely
known of all the palaearctic butterflies and include such species as the
Painted Lady (Papilio cavdui Linnaeus) and the Red Admiral. (Papilio
atalanta Linnaeus). There are very strong objections to upsetting so
universal a usage unless on the other side very strong reasons can be
adduced for doing so. Moreover, if one examines the history of the name
Cynthia Fabricius, one finds that it has been used almost consistently for
an entirely different group of butterflies belonging to an entirely different
faunistic region, 7.e. the Indo-Malayan region. One of these butterflies;
Papilio arsinoe Cramer 1777, was the first of the six very miscellaneous
species included by Fabricius in his genus Cynthia. The name Cynthia
Fabricius came into general use for these species as a result of Doubleday’s
action in re-applying it to avsinoe Cramer in his Geneva of Diurnal Lepido-
pleva and that species was actually specified as the type by Scudder (1875,
Proc. Amer. Acad. Aris Sc1. Boston 10 : 152). It was consistently used in
that sense by all subsequent authors until Barnes and Lindsey. (1922,
Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 15: 92) quite correctly pointed out that under the
International Code this use was wrong as the type of Cynthia Fabricius is
Papilio cavdui Linnaeus, 1758, that species having been specified as such
in 1840 by Westwood (1840, Introd. Class. Ins.2 Syn. : 87), the first author
to specify a type for this genus.

The position is, therefore, that a strict application of the Code would :—

(a) deprive Papilio atalanta Linnaeus and Papilio cardui Linnaeus of the
generic name Vanessa Fabricius by which they have been almost
universally known since 1807;

(b) transfer those species to the genus Cynthia Fabricius, a name which
has not only hardly ever been applied to them but has also been
applied almost universally to an entirely different group of species
(Papilio arsinoe Cramer and its allies) .3

In my opinion the confusion that would result is too high a price to pay
for the sake of applying the principle of page priority to two names first
published on the same page of the same work.

3. The paper from which the foregoing passage is an extract
concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee
would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomen-
clature of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it
was highly desirable that in the exercise of their plenary powers the

3 The oldest available name for Papilio arsinoe Cramer and its allies is
Vindula Hemming, 1934, Entomologist 67 : 77.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 156. 243

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as
soon as possible render an Opinion to the following effect :—

The principle of page priority shall not be invoked to secure precedence
for Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281 no. 11) over
Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (ibid. 6: 281 no. 12). Consequently Vanessa
Fabricius shall be deemed to be the older of the two names and is hereby
added to the Official List of Generic Names.

These conclusions were concurred in by the Lepidoptera Sub-
Committee by whom they were submitted to the Committee on
Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed the view of the
Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of the Society to
approach the International Commission in the sense indicated.
It was in accordance with this recommendation that the Council
addressed to the Commission the letter referred to in paragraph
I above.

otter SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the
current number of the ‘“‘ Canadian Entomologist.’’? ‘You will see by this
that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the
fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I
am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in
favour of such procedure.

The following is an extract from the note referred to above :—

ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES
(Lepid. : Rhopalocera)

To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic and
Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the “‘ Generic
- Names of British Rhopalocera’”’ will prove of great interest. This pamphlet
has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the Committee
on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society of London,
and includes full details regarding type fixation andsynonymy. Appended
to the list is the first report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee to the main
committee, and following Mr. Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of
the Law of Priority in four cases is advocated by this sub-committee, the
ground being that strict application of the rules would cause serious, and
quite unnecessary, disturbance in existing practice.

The genera involved, with their proposed genotypes, are as follows :

. a Vanessa Fabr. (P. atalanta Linn.)...

244 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

J. Mc. Dunnough, Entom. Br., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada.
May 15, 1934. |

Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934.

John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles,
Calif. JA pr.20;-5934:,

Wm. T. M. Forbes,4 Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y. Apr.

17) 1OSA.
Roswell C. Williams, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, 19th & Race Sts., Phila
delphia, Pay PAprni 77 Los.
E. Irving Huntington, 155 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. Apr. 21, 1934.
Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934.
Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934.
C. H. Curran, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934.
Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934. ~
Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr.

ZAG VOSA

5. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Inter-
national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on
the present application. This case was accordingly considered
by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid
in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth Inter-
nation@l Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration,
the International Committee agreed to recommend the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such
action under their plenary powers as might be necessary to secure
that the generic name for Papilio atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, should
be Vanessa Fabricius, 1807. This, and other, recommendations
adopted by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium
Plenum held on 12th September 1935.

Ill1—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

4 Dr. Forbes added the following note :—I should be equally willing to

accept 10 or antiopa as type of Vanessa, being more interested in fixity than
in what is fixed, within reason.

- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 156. 245

some of which advertisements had not been published or, if
published, had not been published for the prescribed period,
owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Com-
mission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Com-
mission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday,
16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9)
that immediate consideration should be given to all cases sub-
mitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the
stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-
Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon
Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this
decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking
decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the
prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied with,
the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as might
be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and
that no Ofimion should be rendered and published thereon until
after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on which
the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals
for publication. The case of the generic names Vanessa Fabricius
and Cynthia Fabricius was one of the cases in question and was
accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above
procedure.

7. This case was considered by the International Commission later
in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session,
2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when the Commission agreed :—®

(a) to “ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :—

ee © © ee 6

(e) to declare that page precedence shall. not be invoked to secure
precedence for Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger)
6: 281 (type: Papilio cavdui1 Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)
1: 475) over Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk.(Illiger)
6 ; 281 (lower down on the same page as the name Cynthia) (type:
Papilio atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 478); and
therefore that the name Vanessa Fabricius is valid ;

Mmtenadd the generic mames ... Vanessa Pabricius, 1807, . . . to
the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above ;

(1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (1) above.

> Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 20-23.

246 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of
the report ® which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held
on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day
of the Congress.

g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at
Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6
above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con-
ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given
case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica-
tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise-
ment in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules
in the present case, no communication of any kind has been
addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue
of an Opinion in the terms proposed.

10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the eee (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :— _

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger. ,
Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice

Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

11. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission

6 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 60-61.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 156. 247

in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and
Stiles.

12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon
the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.-AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given ©

case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict
application of the said rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the
said case should be given in two or more of five journals named
in the said Resolution and provided that the vote in the Com-
mission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of
the rules; and .

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Ofinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of

248 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the-said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Fifty Six (Opinion 156) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANcIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fifth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and
Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the
archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 150. 249

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 has been published in 1944 and Parts 5
and 6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-15 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-g and Ofimions 1-6) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. ‘his volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-26, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-156,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Ofimions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (con-
taining Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

250 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 27. Pp. 251-262.

OPINION 157

Three names in the Order Hymenoptera
_ (Class Insecta) added to the Official List of
: Generic Names in Zoology |

a. LONDON:
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
| 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945.
Price three shillings

Issued 21st February, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Dae
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U:S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office 3 the Cuneo <
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 157.

THREE NAMES IN THE ORDER HYMENOPTERA (CLASS
INSECTA) ADDED TO THE OFFICIAL LIST OF GENERIC
NAMES IN ZOOLOGY.

SUMMARY.—The names Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805], Arge
Schrank, 1802, and Diprion Schrank, 1802 (Class Insecta, Order
Hymenoptera), with the types specified in paragraph 7 of the present
Opinion, are hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names
in Zology as Names Nos. 602 to 604.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

Attention was first drawn by Professor James Chester Bradley
in 1919 (Trans. ent. Soc. Lond. 1919 : 50-75) to certain serious
difficulties in the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) that would
arise from the strict application of the rules as regards names first
published in the so-called “‘ Erlangen List.’’ These difficulties led
Professor Chester Bradley to consult the leading systematic
workers in the Hymenoptera in all countries on the course of action
tobe pursued. As the result of these consultations, the following
petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymeno-
pterists was submitted to the International Commission :—

The conservation of Cvyptus and Pieronus

Crypius Jurine, 1801, Type C. segmentaria Panzer (see Bradley, 1919,
Pp. 54) isasawfly. But the name has been universally used in the sense of
Fabr., 1804, for a genus of ichneumon wasps, typical of the universally
recognised ‘subfamily CRYPTINAE. Cryptus segmentaria Panzer is con-
generic with Tenthredo enodis L., the genotype of Avge, today recognised as
the type genus of a family of sawflies.

Pievonus Jurine, 1801, Type.Tenthredo pini L, (see Morice and Durrant,
1915, p. 380 and Rohwer, 1g11, p. 88 and 98) has been in common use until
Pievonidea was proposed by Rohwer (loc. cit.) to replace it, for a genus of
TENTHREDINIDAE of the subfamily NEMATINAE. But Tenthredo pini is
type of Diprion Schrank, 1802, the type genus of the family called by
Rohwer DIPRIONIDAE. This group has been universally known as LOPHY-
RIDAE OF LOPHYRINAE, the genus Lophyrus Latr., 1802, having as its type

1 Fabricius’s Systema Piezatorum was probably not published until the
beginning of 1805 and if published in 1804 must have been published at
the very end of that year (see Griffin, 1935, 7m Richards, Trans. R. ent.
Soc. Lond. 83: 144). Names first published by Fabricius in this work
ee therefore be dated ed —1805 and the date should be cited in square

rackets.

254 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

also, Tenthvedo pini L., but since it was preoccupied in Mollusca by Poli in
1791, it has been recently replaced by Diprion.

The changes from the universal usage of more than a century necessitated
by the above facts under the application of the Code are hereunder
tabulated :—

Cryptus of authors becomes: JItamoplex Foerster (see Cushman,
R. A., Proc. Washington Academy of Sci., 1925, 15: 280).

CRYPTINI of authors becomes : ITAMOPLEGINI*; MESOSTENINI accord-
ing to Cushman.

CRYPTINAE of authors becomes : ITAMOPLEGINAE * ; GELIDINAE accord-
ing to Cushman.t

Arge Schrank and auctt. becomes: Cvypius Jurine nec auctt.

ARGINAE Of Rohwer becomes : CRYPTINAE.

ARGIDAE of Rohwer becomes : CRYPTIDAE.

Ptervonus of authors becomes: Ptevonidea Rohwer.

Lophyrus Latr. and authors (nec Poli) become: Pélevonus Jurine

Diprion Schrank, a synonym of Lophyrus be auctt.

LOPHYRINAE auctt., DIPRIONINAE Rohwer, becomes PTERONINAE.

Since to follow the rules in these cases would involve great confusion,
and would leave uncertainty in the future as to the sense in which these
family names were used and would dissociate the future literature from
the past to the utmost confusion of scholars, therefore the undersigned,
hopeful of relief, respectfully petition the Commission to invoke the plenary
power bestowed upon them by action of the Monaco Congress, and to take
action as follows, to wit:

(1) to suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Cryptus, Arge
and Pieronus ;
(2) to permanently reject :

(a) Cryptus Jurine, 1801, and Panzer, 1804, type C. segmentaria
Panzer;
(b) Péevonus Jurine, 1801, and Panzer, 1804, type Tenthredo
pint L.;
(3) to validate :

(a) Avge Schrank, 1802, type Fenthvedo enodis L.;

(b) Cryptus Fabr., 1804, type C. viduatorius Fabr.;

(c) Lophyrus Latr., 1802, type Tenthredo pini (in spite of Lophyrus
Poli, 1791, in Mollusca §) or Diprion || Schrank, 1802, type
Tenthredo pint;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :

(a) Cryptus Fabricius, 1804, type C. viduatorius Fabr., as the
correct name for a genus of ichneumon-wasps };

(b) Avge Schrank, 1802, type Tenthvedo enodis L., as the correct
name for a genus of sawflies;

* On the grounds that CRYPTINAE auctt. was based on Cryptus Fabr.,
a homonym of Cryptus Jurine, that its type genus must not be changed,
but only the name thereof, and that if the name of the type genus changes
to Itamoplex, or otherwise the subfamily will be based on the changed
name,

+ On the basis of Gelis being the oldest contained name although a name
not hitherto used as type of a group name.

§ Lophyrus is no longer a recognised or a-valid name in Mollusca.

|| Diprion only in case the Commission is unwilling to validate Lophyrus.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 157. 255

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-

mission :—

2, Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns {

G, Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
io. Prison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
A. R. Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy

H. H. Ross * G,. Arnold V9. Lb, Pate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

G. T. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * Aw: Kinsey. * O. Vogt tf

E, A, Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl t+
A. Crevecoeur P. Maidl E. Kruger f

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams f
H. von Ihering { A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht tf

R. B. Benson *

N. N. Kuznezov-

H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky +
H. Bischoff W. V. Balouf * By, By Lutz
L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

t Deceased.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International

Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and
the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should
be dealt with at Lisbon in September of that year, by which time
the recommendations of the International Committee on En-
tomological Nomenclature would be available.

256 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

this radical fashion. The International Committee accordingly
agreed upon the following recommendations :—

(a) if the “ Evlangen List’”’ was suppressed :

(i)

(iii)

there would be no need for the International Commission to use
their plenary powers to suppress the names, Cvypius Jurine,
1801, and Pteronus Jurine, 1801, since both those names would
cease to. be available nomenclatorially if the “‘ Erlangen ps ce
was suppressed ;

In the petition the date 1804 had been assigned to the names
Cryptus Panzer and Pieronus Panzer; but the second of ‘these
names was certainly not published until 180 5, while the date of
the first was uncertain. In these circumstances no question of
the suspension of the rules would arise for Ptevonus Panzer and
suspension would not be essential in the case of Cvyptus Panzer.

the name Lophyrus Latreille, [1802—1803],? (42 Sonnini’s Buffon)
Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 302, was to be preferred to
Diprion Schrank, 1802, Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209, for the genus
of sawflies referred to in paragraph 4(c) of the summary to the
petition, but no serious confusion would arise if the Commission
felt reluctant to use their plenary powers to validate Lophyrus
Latreille by SUpPressins the name Lophyrus Poli, 1791, Test.

S1éu. 1 32,-43

In the circumstances contemplated, it would therefore be
sufficient if the International Commission were to add the
names Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805], Avge Schrank, 1802, and
Diprion Schrank, 1802, to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology, with the types ‘indicated 1 in paragraph 4 of the summary
to the petition ; 4

(b) if the ‘ Erlangen List’? was not suppressed :

(i)

In order to secure the desired result, it would be necessary for
the International Commission to use their plenary powers to
suppress the names Crypius Jurine, 1801, and Ptevonus Jurine,
1801, and, as the use of the plenary powers would in any case
be necessary in order to deal with this case, the Commission
might consider it convenient also to use those powers to suppress
Cryptus Panzer, in order to eliminate the possibility of subsequent
discussion in regard to the relative priority of that name and
Cryptus Fabricius ;

Once the Commission had used their plenary powers in the fore-
going sense, the position would be similar to that which would
exist if the ‘‘ Erlangen List ’’ was suppressed, and in consequence
the recomnfendations set out in (a) (ili) and (iv) above would

apply.

5. The recommendations agreed upon by the Tateraatienes
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, as set out in para-
graph 4 above, together with the other resolutions adopted by the

* This volume is dated ‘‘ An X”’ in the French Republican calendar.
It. was, therefore, published between 23rd September 1801 and 22nd
September 1802 (see Griffin, 1939, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 (9) : 240).

3 The genus Lophyrus Poli, 1791, belongs to the Class and Order Poly-
placophora.

* For the text of the petition here referred to, see paragraph I oe the
present Opinion.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 157. 257

Committee during its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by -
the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium
Plenum held at Madrid on. 12th September 1935.

6. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Monday,
16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
13°), the International Commission unanimously agreed to use
the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, in order to
suppress the “‘ Erlangen List.’’ When, therefore, at their meeting
held on the afternoon of the same day (Lisbon Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 2 *) the Commission came to consider the
present case, they found that it was only necessary to take into
account the recommendations of the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature set out in section (a) of paragraph
4 above, since those in section (b) were no longer applicable.

Pe —lam CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

7. After careful consideration, the International Commission
decided to adopt the recommendations submitted in this case by
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature as
summarised in section (a) (iv) of paragraph 4 above, and accord-
ingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2 *) :—

(a) to place on the Official List of Generic Names in Zocieey the under-
: -mentioned six nomenclatorially available generic names, with types
as shown, each of which has been duly designated in accordance with

the provisions of the International Code :—

Name of genus Tepe of genus

(4) Cryptus Fabricius, [1804— Cryptus viduatorius Fabricius,

1805], Syst. Piezat. : 70 [1804-1805], (same reference as

- generic name Crypius)

(type designated by Curtis, 1837,

ag Bnit. Ent. 14: pl. 668) Vet

(5) Avge Schrank, 1802, Tenthvredo enodis Linnaeus, 1767,
Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209 SWVSis INGE NEG I) BCR.

(type designated by Rohwer, ro11,

Tech. Ser. U.S. Bur, Ent. 20 (2) : 74)

_ ® See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 13-14.

® See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30.

* Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are
here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl.1:27-30. °._.

258 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(6) Diprion Schrank, 1802, Tenthredo pint Linnaeus, 1758,
Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 209 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 556
(type designated by Rohwer, roto,
Proc. U.S, nat. Mus. 39 : 103)

eeeeee

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 25 of
the report ® which at their meeting held on the morning of Wed-
nesday, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session,
5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held
on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day
of the Congress.

g. The present Ofinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was not present on that
occasion indicated disagreement with the conclusions then
reached by the Commission in this matter.

11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were neither
present at the Lisbon Session of the International Commission
nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present
Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and-Stiles.

12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

8 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 58-59.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I57. 259

im AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUBP OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Ofimion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Fifty Seven (Opinion 157) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-

clature, have signed the present Opinion.

260 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

DonE in London, this tenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred and
Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the
archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

- COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 157. 201

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

_ (obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

_ The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and
6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
) - mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
_ currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-16 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-7) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with

Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-29, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-159,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (containing
Opinions 182-185) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

262 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS ©

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and -
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’. | .

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RiIcHARD CLAY AND CoMPANY, Ltp., _
UNGAY SUFFOLK,

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 28. Pp. 263-274.

OPINION 158

On the status of the name Locusta Linnaeus,
1758 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price three shillings

Issued 21st February, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 158.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAME LOCUSTA LINNAEUS, 1758
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER ORTHOPTERA).

_ SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared
that the name Locusta Linnaeus (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera)
is to be accepted as of subgeneric value as from 1758 (Syst. Nat.
(ed. 10) 1 : 431) and that its type is Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus,
1758. The name Locusta Linnaeus, validated as above and with
the type indicated above, is hereby added to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology aS Name No. 605.

[.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

The name Locusta was included in the long list of generic names
drawn from many Phyla and Classes dealt with in the paper
published in 1915 by Commissioner C. Apstein under the title
“ Nomina conservanda. Unter Mitwirkung zahlreicher Spezralisten
herausgegeben von Prof. C. Apstein, Berlin’’ (SitzBer. Ges. naturf.
Fr. Berl. 1915 (5) : 119-202). Commissioner Apstein proposed
that all the names included in his list should be treated by the
Commission as ““ nomina conservanda ”’ (7.e. that they should be
placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology) with the
types indicated in his list.

2. Commissioner Apstein in his list attributed the name Locusta
(Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) not to Linnaeus but to “ Geer ”’
eae itom 1773 and proposed that ~“ wividissima L., 1758,’ 1.€.
Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 430)
should be declared to be the type of this genus.

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THIS CASE.

3. Commissioner Apstein communicated his list to the Com-
mission in the course of 1915 and in December of that year the
Secretary to the Commission suggested that the most satisfactory.
way of dealing with his proposal would be to refer the various
portions of which it was made up to special advisory committees
on the nomenclature of the groups concerned. This course was
adopted but, as was inevitable, the reports from the Committees
were a long time in coming in, In 1922, the Commission agreed

266 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

to render an Opinion (Opinion 74), in which they pointed out
that they had no power to adopt en bloc the list submitted by
Commissioner Apstein but indicated that they were prepared “ to
consider names separately upon presentation of reasonably
complete evidence.”’

4. In 1929, Commissioner A. Handlirsch submitted to the
Commission a further list of generic names in the Order Orthoptera
which he recommended be added to the Official List. Com-
missioner Handlirsch’s list contained a number of names already
submitted to the Commission in Commissioner Apstein’s list.
Among these names was Locusta, which Commissioner Handlirsch,
like Commissioner Apstein, attributed to De Geer, 1773, and for
which he also proposed that “ vividissima L., 1758” should be
recognised as the type.

5. Later in 1929, the Commission invited the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to consider (a) the
list of 52 names of genera of the Order Orthoptera submitted by
Commissioner Apstein, (b) the report on certain of the names
contained therein furnished at their request by Dr. A. N. Caudell
of the United States National Museum,! and (c) the list of 28
names submitted by Commissioner Handlirsch, and to submit
recommendations to the Commission in regard thereto.

6. This request involved a considerable amount of preliminary
study by the International Committee, and it was accordingly
not until their meeting at Madrid in the second week of September
1935 that the International Committee were able to draw up a
resolution, for submission to the International Commission, in
regard to the names in the Order Orthoptera on which they had
been asked to advise. .

7, When the International Committee came to examine the
case of the name Locusta, they found that the situation had
changed materially since the receipt of Commissioner Apstein’s
original proposal. The name Locusta was no longer commonly
attributed to De Geer but was treated almost universally as
having been published by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed.
10) 1: 431), where it was introduced as one of six subdivisions
(Mantis, Acrida, Bulla, Acheta, Tettigonia, Locusta) of the genus
Gryllus. Further, as regards the type of Locusta, it was now
recognised that, if Locusta was to be treated as having been
published in the roth edition of the Systema Naturae, its type

1 The name Locusta was not one of the names dealt with in the report
here referred to.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 267

could not possibly be Gryllus viridissimus Linnaeus, 1758 (as
proposed by Commissioners Apstein and Handlirsch), since on
that occasion Linnaeus had placed Gryllus viridissimus in the
subdivision which he called Tettigonia and not in the subdivision
Locusta. Moreover, Dr. B. P. Uvarov, a member of the Inter-
national Committee, had in 1921 (Bull. ent. Res. 12 : 135-163)
published a revision of the genus Locusta in which he had pointed
out that the first valid type designation for this genus was that
of Gryllus Locusta migratorius Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed.
10) 1 : 432) by Curtis in 1836 (Brit. Ent. 3: 608). Since that date,
that species had become generally accepted as the type of Locusta.
In these circumstances, it seemed as though all that was required
in this case was to recommend the International Commission to
add the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, to the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology, with Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, as
type, that species having been validly so designated under the
International Code.

- 8. At this stage in the consideration of this case, Commissioner
Karl Jordan, Secretary to the International Committee, informed
the Committee that at their meeting held at Padua on 30th
August 1930, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature had decided in principle to render an Opinion
declaring that the various subdivisions of genera published by
Linnaeus in 1758 (in the Syst. Nat.) are not to be accepted as of
that date (1758) as of subgeneric value under the rules. An
Opinion in this sense had recently been formally adopted by the
Commission and would shortly be published.? It would be found
that in that Opinion the Commission had made it clear that, if
any group of specialists were to find that because of the literature
in their group, the decision laid down in this Opinion would
produce greater confusion than uniformity, the Commission
would be prepared to consider individual cases submitted to them
‘by the specialists concerned.

g. After further discussion, the International Committee were
unanimously of the opinion that to deprive the name Locusta of
its status as a name published by Linnaeus in 1758 would be
likely to produce greater confusion than uniformity and that for
this reason it was desirable that the International Commission
should be asked to exclude the name Locusta from the scope of
the general Opinion shortly to be published.2 The Committee

* The Opinion here referred to was published as Opinion 124 in 1936
(Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (No. 8) : 1-2).

208 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

were greatly strengthened in this view by the evident need of
doing everything possible to secure stability of nomenclature in
the case of a genus such as Locusta which contained species of very
great economic importance and which had in consequence been
widely used in technical publications outside the field of systematic
entomology. |

10. The International Committee accordingly adopted a
resolution inviting the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to make use of their plenary powers to suspend
the rules, in order to ensure that the name Locusta should have
status as from its publication in the roth edition of Linnaeus’s
Systema Naturae, to declare Gryllus migratorius Linnaeus, 1758,
to be the type of the genus Lecusta Linnaeus so validated and to
add the name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, with the above species as
type, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

iz. This and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature during its meeting
held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress
of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on rath
September 1935.

Ill.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE COMMISSION.

12. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon. Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had-reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “* under
suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 269

should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after
the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should
be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement
was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The
case of the genus Locusta Linnaeus was one of the cases in question
and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the
above procedure.

13. This case was considered by the International Commission
at their meeting held on Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 18 3), when the Commission
agreed :—

(a) to take note that the present was an application submitted by
specialists under the invitation contained in the Resolution adopted
by the International Commission at their meeting held at Padua on
30th August 1930, and reaffirmed in Opinion 124, for a name (Locusta)
published by Linnaeus in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10)) as a subdivision of
a genus (Grvyllus Linnaeus, 1758) to be accepted as of that date (1758)
as of subgeneric value under the International Rules;

(b) to “‘ suspend the rules’ in the case of the name Locusta Linnaeus

» and, under the said “ suspension of the rules,’”’ to declare :—
(i) that the said name Locusta Linnaeus shall be accepted as of
subgeneric value as from 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 431); and
(11) that the type of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, so validated, shall be
Gryllus migvatorius Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432);

(c) to place the generic name Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, as validated in (b)
above and with the type there specified, on the Official List of Generic
Names; ;

(d) to render an Opinion in the sense of (a) to (c) above.

14. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 26 of
the report 4 which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology.

15. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10 5) that Commissioner Karl
Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the
Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such
arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to
them necessary or expedient :—

(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
- quarters ;

3 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 16
4 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59.
' 5 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 48.

270 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from
time to time by the Commission ;

(i11) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their
Lisbon Session ;

(iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-
mission ; and generally

(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

16. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of

Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the
Concilium Plenum held on Saturday, 21st September 1935, the
last day of the Congress.

17. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commicsion
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph

12 above), the case of Locusta Linnaeus was duly advertised in-

1936 in two or more of the journals named in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology held at
Monaco in March 1913, by which the said International Congress
conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to

any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the

strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since
the advertisement in the said journals of the proposed suspension
of the rules in the case of Locusta Linnaeus, no communication
has been addressed to the Commission raising objection to the
solution proposed in regard to the name Locusta Linnaeus. One
communication has, however, been received expressing the view
that the suspension of the rules is not necessary to secure the
desired end. This communication, which was dated 1st March
1937 and bore the signature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to
the Commission in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature
of the Entomological Society of Washington. The passage in
that document relating to Locusta Linnaeus reads as follows :—

Locusta L. was proposed as a subdivision of Gryllus, with several included
species—among them, migvatorius L. (Syst. Nat. 10, p. 442 7). The case
has been briefly but ably reviewed by Uvarov, 1921 (Bull. ent. Res. 12 ; 136),

6 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 31-40).
” The reference here given as “‘ 442 ”’ is a typist’s error for “‘ 432’

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 271

who shows that Curtis, 1836 (Brit. Ent. 3: 608) definitely named migra-
tovius type of Locusta. As he points out this is in accord with Linnaeus’
conception of his genus Gryllus Locusta as well as conforming with the
International Rules. It appears that no action under suspension of the
Rules ® is necessary in this case.

18. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of
the document from which the above is an extract were com-
municated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but
since that date no member of the Commission has expressed him-
self as being in agreement with the views expressed therein.

19. The communication received in regard to the name Locusta
Linnaeus quoted in paragraph 17 above was considered—together
with certain representations similarly received in regard to the
name Phaneroptera Serville °—at a Plenary Conference between
the President of the Commission and the Secretary to the Com-
mission convened in London on roth June 1939 under the authority
of the Resolution adopted by the Commission at their meeting
held on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph
15 above). The Conference (Plenary Conference, 1st Meeting,
Conclusion 11 1°) :—

(a) took note that within the twelve months following the advertisement
of the action proposed, representations had been received from the
Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of
Washington in regard to the names Lecusta Linnaeus and Phanero-
pteva Serville ;

(c) agreed that the communication referred to in (a) above brought
forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in
favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them

_ by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in
resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year;

8 See, however, paragraphs 8 and 9 of the present Opinion.

® For the decision of the Commission in regard to Phaneroptera Serville,
see Opinion 154 (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 209-226),

10 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 79-80.

272 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

indicated in the said paragraph of the Commission’s report that had
been approved and adopted by the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September

1935:
20. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vwice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

21. The present Ofinion was dissented from by no Commissioner .
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

22. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of
the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case
should be given in two or more of five journals named in the said
Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was
unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules;
and :

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 158. 278

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the
terms of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
_ national Commission, acting for the International Congress of -
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Ofimion
Number One Hundred and Fifty Eight (Opinion 158) of the said
Commission. ;

In faith whereof, I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this fifteenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. |

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

274. INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established bye the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—
(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International
Commission for deliberation and decision ; =
(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with,
zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above;
and
(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic
theory and practice.
The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were
published. Part 4 was published in 1944 and Parts 5 and 6 are in the

press. a

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently,
namely :—

Volume 1. ‘This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which
is now out of print). Parts 1-16 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions

1-7) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at
Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and
Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the
index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-29, containin eclarvations
10-12 and Opinions 134-159, have now been published. . urther Parts
will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will
contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-4 (containing Opinions 182-185) have
now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘“ International Commission on Zoological
fay ee eae or Order ’’ and crossed * Account payee. Coutts

0.72

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND CoMPaANny, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 29. Pp. 275-290.

OPINION 159

On the status of the names Ephialtes Schrank,
1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabri-
cius, [1804-1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst,

1829 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
I Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
| 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
|

1945
Price four shillings

Wace Mere

dbused 21st February, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom),
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946
Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).
Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).
Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.-A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 159.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES EPHIALTES SCHRANK,
1802, ICHNEUMON LINNAEUS, 1758, PIMPLA FABRICIUS,
[1804-1805], AND EPHIALTES GRAVENHORST, 1829 (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, is suppressed; (ii) all existing type
designations for Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius,
{1804-1805],1 and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, are set aside;
(iii) Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated
as the type of Ichnewmon Linnaeus, 1758; (iv) Ichneumon
instigator Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as the type of
Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805]1; (v) Ichneumon manifestator
Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated as the type of Ephialtes Graven-
‘horst, 1829. The names Ichnewmon Linnaeus, Pimpla Fabricius,
and Ephialtes Gravenhorst (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera),
with the types severally indicated above, are hereby added to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 606 to
608. |

el de STATEMENT OF THE Cask.

As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James
Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order
Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by
Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was sub-
mitted to the International Commission :—

THE CASE OF JCHNEUMON LINNAEUS, EPHIALTES SCHRANK AND PIMPLA
FABRICIUS

Ichneumon Linnaeus, type Ichneumon manifestator (see Viereck, 1914,
-p. 75; Morice and Durrant, 1915, p. 389) has been known for a century as
the type genus of the enormous family ICHNEUMONIDAE and its subfamily
ICHNEUMONINAE, under the assumption that [chneumon comitator L. was
its type or congeneric therewith. But the true type under the Code,

1 Fabricius’s Systema Piezatorum was probably not published until the
beginning of 1805 and, if published in 1804, must have been published at
the very end of that year (see Griffin, 1935, 7m Richards, Tvans. R. ent.
Soc. Lond. 88:144). Names first published in this work should therefore
be dated 1804-1805 and the date should be cited in square brackets.

278 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Ichneumon manifestator is the recognised type of Ephialtes Gravenhorst,
1829 (mec Schrank, 1802), a genus that belongs to the great subfamily
universally known as PIMPLINAE, and Viereck and a few very recent writers
have used the genus Jchneumon in this sense, and the term ICHNEUMONINAE
to replace what has universally been called PIMPLINAE.

Pimpla Fabr., 1804,1 p. 112, type [chneumon manzfestator L. (see Viereck,
1914, p. 117), the type genus of the subfamily PIMPLINAE, has been uni-
versally used in the sense that would imply instigator or a congener as its
type, but the true type species, manifestator, is, as stated above, the type
of Ephialtes Grav. and authors.

Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, type Ichneumon compunctor (see Cushman and
Rohwer, Pvoc. ent. Soc. Washington, IQ1Q, V. 20, p. 168) is probably identical
with Pimpla in the sense of authors (nec Fabr.) or of Pimplidea Viereck
(1914, p. 117), but that is not the sense in which the name has been em-
ployed. It has been so used essentially only by Cushman and Rohwer,
other authors using Ephialies in the Gravenhorstian sense.

Accordingly, under the rules, [chneumon, Pimpla and Ephialtes Graven-
horst are identical synonyms, each having the same type, and all referring
to the group commonly known as EpAzalies altho’ for a century the names —
have been applied to distinct groups. Ephialtes Schrank, on the other
hand the use of which has only been recently resurrected by Cushman and
Rohwer, is identical with Pimpla in the commonly accepted Gravenhorstian
sense.

These 3 groups, especially the 2 former, are large and important. There
are approximately 1,000 described species of Ichneumon auctt., 340 of
Pimpila auctt. in the broad sense, 80 of Ephialies auctt. Many species of
Pimpla are exceedingly abundant and well known to everyone who has
bred caterpillars. Ephialtes are less common, but some because of their
large size and conspicuous appearance are very well known insects.

There have been a considerable number of generic and subgeneric names
formed by adding prefixes to the generic names Ichneumon and Pimbpla,
some with Ephialies. Under the rules each of these will be dissociated
from the genus under the name of which it is based.

From the facts above cited, it follows that under the Code the following
upheavals must be made in the nomenclature of the family ICHNEU-
MONIDAE :—

Ephialies of authors becomes Ichneumon ;

Ichneumon of authors become Amblyieles Wesmael ;

Tribe ICHNEUMONINI of authors becomes AMBLYTELINI;

Subfamily ICHNEUMONINAE of authors (nec Viereck, Cushman, 7
becomes JOPPINAE ;

Pimpla of authors becomes Ephialtes Schrank nec auctt. ;

PIMPLINI Of authors becomes EPHIALTINI and ICHNEUMONINI;
(Cushman and Rohwer divide the tribe PIMPLINI of authors into
2 tribes which they call EPHIALTINI and ICHNEUMONINI. Under
the old usage of the generic names these would be known as
PIMPLINI and EPHIALTINI respectively.)

PIMPLINAE of authors becomes ICHNEUMONINAE Viereck, Cushman and
Rohwer, etc. (nec auctt.).

Of the 83 species listed by Dalla Torre (1903, Catalogus Hymenopierorum *)
as Ephialies, 45 or more than 50 per cent., are under names used in both
Ephialies and Ichneumon. 32 of these names were first used in the genus
Ichneumon.

Therefore, by the transfer of species from Ephialtes to I chneumon, 32
homonyms must be replaced by new names—that is between one-third and
one-half of the genus must be renamed.

* Dalla Torre, 1903, Cat. Hymenopt. 3 : 469.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I5Q.

279

Seven other names, having been first used in Ephialtes, will on their
transfer to Ichneumon invalidate specific names standing in that genus,
but which are now transferable to Amblyieles.

Five species transferred to Ichneumon will bear names that differ only
in termination from species already in that genus.

The Commission, under its plenary power, can avoid most of this con-
fusion by setting aside the designation by Latreille, 1810, of manifestator
L. as type of Ichneumon, and validating the designation by Curtis, 1839, of
comitator as its type.

The result of this plan, if adopted, will be to save Ichneumon in its
accepted (Gravenhorstian) sense for both generic and super-generic names,
to restrict Pimpla, with type manzfestator L. (designation by Curtis, 1828)
for the group called by Gravenhorst and subsequent authors Ephialtes,
and to leave Ephialies Schrank, 1802, as the correct name for the group
ordinarily known as Pimpla. Pimpla will be saved as type genus of the
subfamily ordinarily known as PIMPLINAE, as well as for the tribe Pim-
PLINI in the sense of Ashmead, and for one of the two tribes into which
that group is divided by Rohwer and Cushman.

Wherefore the undersigned respectfully request the International
Commission on Nomenclature, acting under the plenary power bestowed
upon them by the Monaco Congress, to grant relief from the intolerable-
situation which has arisen, as above set forth, by taking the following
action, to wit :*

(x) to suspend the rules in the case of the generic name Ichneumon ;
(2) to set aside the designation by Latreille, 1810, of Ichneumon mani-
festator L. as type of Ichneumon L., 1758:
(3) to validate the designation by Curtis, 1839, of Ichneumon comitator
as type of Ichneumon L.;
(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names :
Ichneumon L., 1758. type I. comitator L., as the valid name of a
group of ichneumon wasps commonly called by that name.

* We wish however to point out that the Commission could, if it so desired, more
completely restore the status quo of the past century by also rejecting Ephialtes Schrank,
1802, and the designations of manifestator and of flavicans as type of Pimpla; by designa-
tion of the originally included varicornis Fabr. as type of Pimpla; and finally by valida-
tion of Ephialtes Gravenhorst, despite the poe use of the name by the rejected Ephialtes

’ Schrank.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-
mission :—

Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns ¢

G. Grandi A. Krausse, L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
ieee. Prison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
me WK. Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy

H. H. Ross * G. Arnold Niro. ee Pate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
eave MI Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

©. 1. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * mc. Kinsey + O. Vogt ft

E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +
A. Crevecoeur F, Maidl BiKeuger |

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F, X. Williams +

280 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

H. von Ihering ¢ A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht +
A.C. W. Wagner kK. By. Benson * N. N. Kuznezov-
H. Hedicke H. F.. Schwarz Ugamtsky ft

H. Bischoff W. V. Balouf * Bo Ee otz

L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L; Hi, Weld. *

* In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied
the points involved in the particular case.

+ Evidently. intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not®*included in his reply.

t Deceased.

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International
Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and
the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should
be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at.
Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom-
mendations of the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature would be available.

Name of genus Type of genus
Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus, .
1758
Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805 | Ichneumon. instigatoy Fabricius, ©
1793
Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829 Ichneumon manifestator Linnaeus, ©
1758.

5. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen-.
clature accordingly agreed to recommend the International Com--
mission on Zoological Nomenclature to exercise their plenary
powers in the manner indicated above and to place the names
Ichneumon Linnaeus, Pimpla Fabricius, and Ephialies Graven-
‘horst, with the types so determined, on the Official List of

*_. COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 281

Generic Names. The International Committee agreed to add
the further recommendation that, if the International Com-
mission were to take the view that the course proposed was too
drastic, it was desirable that this case should be dealt with in the
more limited fashion suggested in the main recommendation at the
end of the petition.

6. The recommendations agreed upon by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature, as set out in para-
graphs 4 and 5 above, together with the other resolutions adopted
by the Committee at its Madrid meeting, were confirmed by the
sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium
Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

IT] HE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

7. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in-
volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of
some of which advertisements had not been published or, if
published, had not been published for the prescribed period,
owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Com-
mission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Com-
mission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday,
16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
g), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases
submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached
the stage at which a decision could properly. be taken; that the
By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the
Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect
to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved
taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where
the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied
with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as
might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress
and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon
until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on
which the said advertisement was dispatched to the prescribed
journals. for publication. The case’ of the names Ephialtes

282 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Schrank, 1802, Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, Pimpla Fabricius,
[1804-1805], and Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, was among the
cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above
procedure.

8. The present case was considered by: aie International Com-
mission at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th
September 1935. After careful consideration, the Commission
came to the conclusion that the more radical of the proposals
submitted by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature provided the most satisfactory solution of the
difficulties presented by the present case. The Commission
accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion

a) Ve! Hee Lie) 3e.

(b) under “‘ suspension of the rules’’ permanently to reject the following
generic names :—

(10) ‘Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, Fauna boic. 2 (2) : 316

(c) under “‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for
the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(2 3) “Ichneumon Linnaeus, Ichneumon extensorius Linnaeus,
1758,. Syst. Nat. (ed. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed: 10) dae 5en

10) 1 : 560
(24) Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—" Ichneumon instigator Fabricius,
£805], Syst. Prezat.: ~ 1793; Ent. syst aor

112
(25) Ephialies Gravenhorst, Ichneumon manifestator Linnaeus,
1829, Ichneumon. Europ. 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 563
1: Conspectus 64; 3: ;
224
(d) under “‘ suspension of the rules” to place on the Official List of
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;
(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

g. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of the |
report * which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday,
18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed

3 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 27-30.

4 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59-60.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I59Q. 283

(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. |

ro. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10 5) that Commissioner Karl
Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the
Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such
_ arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to
them to be necessary or expedient :—

(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ;

(ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from
time to time by the Commission ;

(iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their
Lisbon Session ;

(iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-
mission; and generally .

(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

11. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at
the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

12. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
7 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.® In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, one com-
_ munication only has been addressed to the Commission raising
objection to the suspension of the rules in this case. This com-

5 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 48.

§ See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

284 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

munication, which was dated 1st March 1937, and bore the sig-
nature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in
the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington. Attached to this document was a note
of dissent by Dr. R. A. Cushman, who supported the suspension
of the rules in this case.

13. The passage in the document-received from the Committee
on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington
relating to the present case reads as follows :—

THE CASE OF JCHNEUMON L., 1758, PIMPLA F., 1804,7 AND EPHIALTES
GRAV., 1829

Ichneumon L. has for its type Ichneumon manifestator L. (by designation
of Latreille, 1810), which is also the type of Pimpla F., 1804.’ Neither of
these generic names, however, was used in the sense of J. manifestator
between the time of Gravenhorst’s classification of the ICHNEUMONIDAE,
1829, and the publication of Viereck’s ‘“‘ Type Species of the Genera of
Ichneumon-flies’’, 1914. Instead, manifestator was considered as typical
of the genus Ephialtes as interpreted by Gravenhorst, 1829; but this
generic name had been published by Schrank, 1802, with a single, and
therefore typical, species, Ichneumon compunctor L., a species belonging to
Pimpla as defined by Gravenhorst. Even after these facts were made
known, certain of the specialists in ICHNEUMONIDAE, particularly in Europe,
have disregarded the proper type fixations of these genera and have con-
tinued to use the names in the Gravenhorstian sense. The active American
workers, however, together-with certain others, have employed the names
as required by the Rules (see Cushman and Rohwer, “‘ Holarctic Tribes of
the Subfamily ICHNEUMONINAE”’, Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. v. 57: 379-3960;
also Cushman, 1921, Pyvoc. U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. 60, Art. 4, pp. 1-14; and
Ceballos, 1924, on the Subfamily yjopprnaE, Tvab. Mus. Nac. cien. Nat.
(Sev. Zool.) No. 50: pp. 1-335). Furthermore, as a result of the large
volume of identification work performed by the American taxonomists for
numerous federal and state agencies in the United States and for institu-
tions and individuals in various other parts of the world, the names involved
here have been used in the sense required by the Code in a large body of.
literature on insect biology and applied entomology, in faunal lists (e.g.,
Leonard, ‘“‘ A List of the Insects of New York,’’ 1928), in certain entomo-
logical text-books, (e.g. Essig, Insects of Western North America, 1926) and
in the indices of American Economic Entomology by Colcord, 1921, 1925
and 1930.

Some confusion is inevitable from application of the Rules in such cases
as these, especially since changes in subfamily names also are involved.
Had earlier action in favor of retention of the Gravenhorstian concepts
been requested of the Commission very little opposition would have
developed. Now, however, that the names have been used in the proper
sense for more than twenty years by some of the most active workers in
the group, return to the long accepted Gravenhorstian usage would, in our
opinion, result in greater confusion in the literature than would follow
from conformity with the Rules. It would also fail to recognise, with

_” For the correct date of Pimpla Fabricius and other names first pub-
lished in the Systema Piezatovum, see footnote 1.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 285

corresponding appropriate credit, the advances made by recent workers in
the use and interpretation of characters which have contributed much to
the development of the classification of this group. In this respect it
would place a premium on conservatism and compilation rather than on
progress. We therefore urge that the request for specific action under
suspension of the Rules, with respect to Ichneumon L., Pimpla F., and
Ephialies Grav., be denied. At the same time we recognise disagreement
with this recommendation on the part of R. A. Cushman, a member of this
Society and a prominent ichneumonologist, and, in fairness to him, we
append a statement which he has prepared.

14. Thenote of dissent by Dr. Cushman referred to in paragraphs
12 and 13 above reads as follows :— :

SHOULD THE GENERIC NAMES JCHNEUMON L., PIMPLA FaB., AND EPHIALTES
GRAV. BE PLACED ON THE OFFICIAL LIST OF NOMINA CONSERVANDA 8?

By R. A. Cushman

I am convinced that the science of Ichneumonology would be best served
by the inclusion of Ichneumon L., Pimpla Fab. and Ephialtes Grav. in the
Official List of nomina conservanda.®

In 1829 Gravenhorst published the first real classification of the family
ICHNEUMONIDAE. ‘This work is the basis for all subsequent classifications.
The generic names employed by Gravenhorst are the very foundation
stones of the nomenclature of the family, and the groups represented by
those names the fourfdation stones of the classification. Most of those
names furnish the stems of the names of supergeneric groups. With
those names, modified by prefixes and suffixes, large numbers of generic
and subgeneric groups have been named, the names being used in the
Gravenhorstian sense.

From the publication of Gravenhorst’s work for nearly a century these
old generic names were employed unquestionably in the sense of Graven-
horst ; and it was virtually not until after the publication in 1914 of Viereck’s
“ Type Species of the Genera of Ichneumon-flies”’ that doubt as to their
validity led to their use in other senses or caused the synonymizing of some
with prior names, although several had been renamed because of pre-
occupation.

With very few exceptions, mostly Americans, the specialists in the
ICHNEUMONIDAE have ignored the International Code in so far as the use
of these names is concerned, the basic nomenclature of the family being
still, for a very large majority of the specialists, that of Gravenhorst.
In the two largest and most comprehensive recent works on the family,
Schmiedeknecht’s ‘‘ Opuscula Ichneumonologica’’ and those fascicles of
“Genera Insectorum”’ dealing with certain of the subfamilies, the nomen-
clature is that of Gravenhorst. Uchida, in Japan, has recently produced
a voluminous revision of the Japanese ICHNEUMONIDAE with the same
interpretation of the genera; while Heinrich, in Poland, and Seyrig, in
France and Madagascar, specializing, the one on the ICHNEUMONINAE and
the other on the PIMPLINAE, employ these names in the same sense.

8 What is here referred to is the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.
Owing to its associations, the phrase nomina conservanda is not used by the
International Commission in its work. ae

286 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS. RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Apparently, Ceballos, in Spain, is the only specialist on the family in Europe
who is disposed to follow genotype fixation in the use of these names, and
he goes only part way.

The few American workers on the family who have, during the past 20
years, tried to follow the International Code in matters of nomenclature,
have found conformity in relation to these .generic names increasingly
irksome.

Interpreting the names Ichneumon, Pimpla and Ephialtes strictly accord-
ing to genotype fixation results in the transfer of Ichnewmon from its -
historical position to another subfamily, necessitating changes in the names
of two’ subfamilies and two tribes; Pimpla becomes synonymous with
Ichneumon, the subfamily PIMPLINAE becomes ICHNEUMONINAE and the
tribe PIMPLINI (sens. lat.) the ICHNEUMONINI; Ephialies Grav. also
becomes synonymous with Ichneumon; while Ephialtes Schrank replaces
Pimpla in the sense of Gravenhorst, making necessary the tribal name
EPHIALTINI instead of PIMPLINI in the most restricted sense. The old
subfamily ICHNEUMONINAE and the tribe ICHNEUMONINI require new
names, and here arises confusion due to the differences in opinion as to
how these names should be formed; whether from the name replacing
Ichneumon, from the next oldest generic name, or from some other generic
name.®

Such names as Coelichneumon, Stenichneumon, Ctenichneumon, Barich-
neumon and many others are left in a group apart from the name from
which they are derived, as are Calliephialtes, Mesoephialtes, Epmaltites,
and others; while the many names derived from Pimpla survive after the
demise of the parent name.

The many hundreds of specific names used in combination with Ichneu-
mon, Pimpla and Ephialies, all of which, unless these names are given the
benefit of the nomina conservanda, will have to go into combination with
Ichneumon, will add greatly to the difficulty of cataloging and to the devis-
ing of new names, to say nothing of the probable necessity of renaming
homonyms.

15. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of
the document from which the passages quoted in paragraphs 13
and 14 above have been extracted were communicated (April
1937) to each member of the Commission, but since that date no
member of the Commission has expressed himself as being in
agreement with the objections raised in the document quoted in
paragraph 13.

_ 16. The representations set out in paragraph 13 above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of
the Commission and the Secretary tothe Commission convened in
London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution
adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on
18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 10

® The question here raised by Dr. Cushman has since been dealt with by
the International Commission in Opinion 141 (see 1943, Opinions and
Declarations rendered by the I nternational Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clatuve 2: 55-60).

10 See footnote 8 above.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 287

above). he Plenary Conference (Plenary Conference, 1st
Meeting, Conclusion 9g) 11:

ee, @ @

(b) examined the communications that had been received during the
prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :—
(i) Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758
(ui) Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805]
(iii) Ephialies Gravenhorst, 1829
from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington

(c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to
in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission
immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Commission had
expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representa-
tions contained therein ;

(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought

_ forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in
favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them
by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in
resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year ;

_ September 1935.

17. The present Ofinion above was concurred in by the twelve
(12) Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session
of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do, Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

18. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-

11 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 76-77.

288 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

19. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
Plenary Power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion, as set out in | the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice-of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth. International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Ofimion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis Hemminc, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-

COMMISSION ON. ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 159. 289

mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Fifty Nine (Opinion 159) of the said
‘Commission.

Mme iaith whereof, 1, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
‘Clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this nineteenth day of May, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. |

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

290 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature
This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—
(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International
Commission for deliberation and decision ; «
(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with,
zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and
(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic
theory and practice.
The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were
published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently,
namely :—

Volume t. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of
which is now out of print). . Parts 1-16 (containing Declarations 1-9 and
Opinions 1-7) have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

enum 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon
in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions
134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and
title page of the volume. Parts 1-29, containing Declarations 10-12 and
Opinions 134-159, have now been published. Further Parts will be
published shortly.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to
31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the Internaional Commission at
their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed “ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.”’.

[Printed by Richard Clay and Company, Lid., Bungay, Suffolk.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 30. Pp. 291-306.

OPINION 160

On the status of the names Anguina Scopoli,
1777, Anguillulina Gervais van Beneden, 1859,
and Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price four shillings

Issued 17th April, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).
Assistant Secretary : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman KE STOLL (Uls.A3):

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).

Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Assistant Secretary to the Commission).

Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, 5.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

ee ee

‘a

OPINION 160.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES ANGUINA SCOPOLI, 1777,
ANGUILLULINA GERVAIS AND VAN BENEDEN, 1859, AND
TYLENCHUS BASTIAN, 1865 (CLASS NEMATODA).

SUMMARY.—For so long as generic names published by authors
using a binary, though not a binominal, system of nomenclature
are recognised as complying with the requirements of Article 25
of the International Code,' the generic names published by Seopoli
in 1777 in his Introductio ad Historiam naturalem are to be accepted
as available nomenelatorially, but the position will need to be re-
examined if later it is decided to reject generié names published by
authors not applying the binominal system. No case has been
established for the suspension of the rules for the purpose either
of invalidating Anguina Scopoli, 1777, and validating Anguillulina
Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, or of invalidating both Anguina
Seopoli, 1777, and Anguiliulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859,
and validating Tylenchus Bastian, 1865 (Class Nematoda).

Pee Slate MENT OF TH) CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission in
1934 by Dr. B. G. Chitwood, Assistant Zoologist, Bureau of
Animal Industry, United States Department of Agriculture, on
behalf of himself and four other members of the staff of that
Department. The following is the text of the document sub-
mitted by Dr. Chitwood :—

‘THE STATUS OF ANGUINA SCOPOLI, 1777, ANGUILLULINA GERVAIS AND VAN
BENEDEN, 1859, AND JT YLENCHUS BASTIAN, 1865

Premise : Anguina Scopoli, 1777 (Introd. ad Hist. nat. sist. Geneva Lapi-
dum Plantarum et Animalium, Prague, p. 374) is the proper generic name
for Vibrio tritict Steinbuch, 1799 (Der Naturforscher, v. 28, p. 251).

Reasons: (1) Scopoli (loc. cit. p. 373) clearly stated that he was making
a new genus, Anguina.

(2) Scopoli gave a recognizable description (loc. cit. p. 374) because (a)
he gave host; (b) he gave location; (c) he gave an attempted description ;
(d) he referred to Linnaeus’ “ not.-.ad Chaos.”’

i see paragraph 16(d) of the present Opinion.

294 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(3) Scopoli’s reference to Linnaeus is identifiable without doubt to
Linnaeus (1767, Systema Naturae (ed. 12) 1 (2), p. 1326, footnote ? reference
“rritic1’’). Linnaeus in. this footnote gave host, location, and an
attempted description “‘ ascaridiformem quasi vermiculum.”’

(4) Scopol and Linnaeus undoubtedly referred to the same species.
There is no doubt as to what that species is, for the species now known as
Tylenchus tritici (= Anguillulina tritici) is the only species in the grains of
wheat and it causes the formation of galls (rounded) instead of galls
(oblong).

This species was first observed by Needham (1744, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc.
Vv. 42, pp. 634-641; and “‘ An Account of some new microscopical Dis-
coveries, Lond., pp. 85-89, pl. 5, figs. 6-7). Needham referred to them. as
“eels in blighted wheat ”’ and indicated that the symptoms in wheat were
well known; he also mentioned the peculiar revivability of the apparently
dead forms when placed in water. This is one of the outstanding biological
characters.

The next reference we find is Linnaeus (1767, loc. cit.), occurring as a
footnote under Chaos ustilago. He did not name the form but rather
considered it as an aberrant “ ustilago.’’ It is not identifiable as “ usti-
lago ’’ since the description of this species, ‘‘ ustilago,’’ was based on a fish-
like oblong vermiculus from Hordeum (probably a protozoan or rotiferan).

Roffredi (1775, Obs. Mem. Phys. Nat. v. 5 (1) pp. USL, dealt with such a
form, the wheat eelworm, but did not name it.

Needham (1775, Jour. de Phys. v. 5, p. 227) stated that he had given
Baker a sample of diseased wheat in 1744, and in 1771 Baker informed
him! the * eels ~ still revived.

Roffredi (1776, Nouv. Recherch. sur les Découv. microscop. etc. annot. par
Needham Pars I, p. 25, Paris) took the view that the forms were moved
by the penetration of fluid.

Steinbuch (1799, Dev Naturforscher, v. 28, p. 256) calls the “‘ Wurm ”’
described by Roffredi Vibrio tritic1. This was the first time a specific
name had been applied.

Bauer (1823, Phil. Trans. Roy. Soc., pp. 1-16, pl. 1, figs. 1-23, pl. 2,
figs. 1-2) described the species under the name Vibrio tritici, not quoting
an author but referring to Needham (1744, loc. cit.) and to Roffredi (1775,
1776, loc. cit.), as well as to a letter of Fontana (1776, Journ. de Physique,
P. 4 3) in which that author is said to have considered the infected grains as

‘extraneous turnaris or gall nuts.’

Dujardin (1845, Hist. Nat. Helm. ou Vers Intest., Paris 239, 242-243)
made Vibrio and Anguillula synonyms of Rhabditis. He called the wheat
eelworm Rhabditis tritic1, or in vernacular, ‘‘ Rhabditis du blé niellé.’’ As
synonyms he listed :

Anguille du blé rachitique ou du faux ergot, Rozier, Obs., 1775, 218.

Vibrio anguillula (y) Miller, Infus. p. 63, pl. 9

Vibrio agrostis Steinbuch, dans Naturf., XXVIL, Pp. 233, pl. 5.

Vibrio tritici Bauer dans les Transact., 1823, Gs CXII, p- 1, pl. 1-2 et dans les Ann. Sc.
nat. 18245 (tLe puas4e ple 7.

Ehrenberg (1828, Die Infusionsthieve als Vollkommene Organismen, p. 82)
first placed the species ¢vitic1 Steinbuch in the genus Anguillula.

Diesing (1851, Systema Helminthum, Vindobonae, v. 2, p. 132) renamed
the “‘ wheat eelworm’’ Anguillula graminearum, listing as references the
following :

* The following is the text of the footnote here referred to :—

TRITICI Grana abbreviata illa et votundata, exsiccata etiam post annos,
in aqua teprdiuscula intra horulam egerminant in ascaridiformem quast
vermiculum ; animatum vix dixero. er

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 295

Needham: Micr. 99 Tab. V. 7

Backer: Micr. expl. 80 Tab. V Fig. 1, 2

Roffredi: in Journ. de Phys. 1775. 369

Anguille vulgaire Rozier: Obs. 1775, Mars. 218 Tab. 1. 7 et 1778, Nov. 401

Anguille du blé rachitique /.c. 1775, Janv. Tab. 1

Anguille du faux ergot. l.c. 1776, Janv. 72 et Mars. 372. et 436

Naturf. XIX. St. 40

Vibrio graminis Steinbuch: in Naturf. XXVIII. St. 233. Tab. V.—et Ej. Analecten.
97.-135. Tab. II. Fig. 1-6

Spallanzani: Micr. 189, Fig. 12 (pessima). idem Opusc. phys. II. 354. Tab. V. 10

Eichhorn: Micr. 72. Tab. VII. A

Gleichen: Micr. 61. Tab. XXVIII. 6

Spuhlwtirmeradlchen. Schrank: Beitr. 19

Wurtemb. Wochenbl. 1782. 354

Vibrio anguillula. Anguillula fulviatilis Muller: Anim. Infus. 65. Tab. IX. 5-8

Vibrio tritici Bauer: in Philosoph. Trans. 1823. I. 1-12. Tab. I et II. Versio in
Annal. des Sc. nat., prem. sér. II. 154-167 cum Tabula.— Bory: in_Encycl.
méth. 1824. 779. — Duges : in Annal. des Sc. nat. prem. sér. IX. 225.— Henslow:
in Microscopical Journal, 1841. 36.

Rhabditis tritici Dujardin: Hist. nat. des Helminth. 242.

Davaine (1857, Recherches sur l anguille du Blé Niellé, etc. oe) described
the species and called it Anguillula tritict.

Gervais and Beneden (1859, Zool. médicale, v. 2. p. 102) made a genus
Anguillulina, placing tritici in the genus. They also included Anguillulina
dipsaci (Kiihn, 1857).

Bastian (1865, Tvans. linn. Soc. v.25, 125-128) made a genus Tylenchus,
in which he included T. agvostidis Bastian, 1865; T. davaini Bastian,
1865; TJ. dipsaci (Kiihn, 1857) and T. tritici (Steinbuch, 1799).

Schneider (1866, Monog. Nematoden, p. 164-165) renamed the species
Anguillula scandens.

Concerning the genera in which ¢viticz has been placed, the following may
be said :

(1) Chaos Linnaeus, 1767, has as its type Chaos protheus Linnaeus, 1767 (= Volvox
chaos Linnaeus, 1758, Protozoan).

(2) Vibrio Miller, 1773, type uncertain. Stiles and Hassall, 1905,—>preferably V.
lineola or V. bacillus (Bacteria).

(3) Angutllula Ehrenberg in Hemprich and Ehrenberg, 1828, has as its type fluviatilis
(Miller, 1786). It was originally proposed for V. fluviatilis Miller, 1783, Ehren-
berg, 1828; V. imflexa H. and E., 1828; V. coluber (M., 1786), H. and E., 1828;
V. recticauda H. and E., 1828; and V. dongalana H. and E., 1828.

Anguillula Miller, 1773, is an error; Miller did not make a genus Anguillula.
He made the species Vibrio anguillula Miller, 1773, which included Chaos redivivum
Linnaeus, 1767, 1326. Later (1783, 161-163) he subdivided the species anguillula
into varieties.

Miller (1786, Animalcula Infusoria fluviatila et marina, étc.), on page 63, gives
the species Vibrio anguillula. Under that species he listed : (a) Anguillula acets
(p. 63); (8) Anguillula glutinis (p.-64); (y) Anguillula fluviatilis (p. 65); (8)
Anguillula marina (p. 66). Under fluviatilis he gave several references, including
Needham (1745, loc. cit.) and others referring to the wheat eelworm, but the first
reference is to his original description of fluviatilis which is not the wheat eelworm.

Gmelin (1790, 3900-3901) was erroneously quoted by Stiles and Hassall (1905,
Pp- 35) as having credited Miller with making a genus Anguillula. Sherborn (1902,
p- 1077) erroneously attributed Anguwillula to Miller, 1786, by listing Miuiller’s
varieties as species of Anguillula. This is apparently the cause of the error by
Stiles and Hassall, to whom a copy of Miller (1786) was not available.

Davaine designated tritici type of Angutllula Ehrenberg, and de Man designated
acett type of this genus. Stiles and Hassall (1905, pp. 36, 86) designated A. fluvia-
tilis (Muller, 1783) (= V. fluviatilis Miller, 1783) as type of Anguillula Ehrenberg.
This designation must stand on the grounds that it is the first designation of an
originally included species. =

Peters (1927, J. Helminth. v. 5, 141-142) on the basis of the above designation
made anew genus 7 urbatrix for the vinegar eel (T. aceti (Miller, 1783)) on the grounds
that Anguillula fluviatilis is unrecognizable. We agree with this action. There-
fore, Anguillula is no longer available for any animal. If this were not so, it would
not be available for tritici because tritici was not an included species and because
Anguina has priority.

296 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(4) Rhabditis Dujardin, 1845, has as the type R. terricola Dujardin, 1845, (type desig-
nation by Stiles and Hassall). Type not congeneric with trztict.

(5) Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, has as its type A. tritici (Steinbuch, 1799),
des. by Stiles and Hassall, 1905.

(6) Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, has as its type T. davainii Bastian, 1865. See Stiles and
Hassall, 1905. Type congeneric with tritici.

Thus we find three generic names available for the wheat eelworm namely,
Anguina Scopoli, 1777, Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, and
Tylenchus Bastian, 1865.

Baylis and Daubney (1926, Synop. Fam. and Gen. Nematoda, p. 65)
recognized Anguillulina, giving Tylenchus and Anguina as synonyms.

Goodey (J. Helminth. v. 10, p. 76) recognized Anguillulina, discarding
both Anguina and Tylenchus, the former without stated reason, the latter
as a Synonym.

It appears to us that the action taken by Baylis and Daubney and by
Goodey is illogical in view of the above data. On the grounds of priority
the proper name should be Anguina. If priority is to be set aside Tylenchus
should be recognized since this name is the best known and the most widely
used. In our opinion Anguillulina has recently been injected into the
literature on illogical grounds. At the present, the literature is in a state
of flux. Either Anguina or Tylenchus should be recognized and put on the
Official List. In our opinion Tylenchus would be preferable in that it
would mean the return to a well established name. If Tylenchus is not
retained, and some confusion is to prevail, then both Anguillulina and
Tylenchus should be considered synonyms of Anguina.

We, the undersigned, hereby request the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, to set aside the rules of priority in this case,
recognizing Tylenchus, and putting it on the Official List, on the grounds
that enforcement of the rules would cause more confusion than would
suspension of the rules.

G. Steiner, G. Thorne,
Senior Nematologist, Associate Nematologist,
Office of Nematology, Bureau of Plant Industry,
Bureau of Plant Industry, U.S. Dept. of Agriculture
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

M. C. Hall B. G. Chitwood,
Chief, Zoological Division, Assistant Zoologist,
Bureau of Animal Industry, Bureau of Animal Industry,
U.S. Dept. of Agriculture U.S. Dept. of Agriculture

eeixe: Christie)
Associate Nematologist,
Bureau of Plant Industry,
WES Dept, OreNerncultunre

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE:

2. Copies of the foregoing memorandum were communicated
to members of the Commission by Commissioner C. W. Stiles,
Secretary to the Commission, in January 1935. In a covering
note Dr. Stiles informed the Commission that he was asking 15
specialists to furnish the Commission with their views on the
proposal submitted. These specialists were resident in Sweden,
England (3), Belgium, Denmark, U.S.S.R., Austria, Germany (3),
Japan, Switzerland, Chile, and Holland.

3. In the same note Dr. Stiles made the following comment on

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 297

the passage in the present petition where it is stated that he
(Dr. Stiles) and Hassall (1905) had erroneously quoted Gmelin
(1790) as having credited Miller with making a genus Anguallula :—

The Secretary concurs with the statement that Miller, 1773, did not
propose a new genus Anguillula but that he was dividing a species anguil-
lula into varieties or subspecies. At the time (1905) Stiles and Hassall
designated the type species of Anguillula, 1773, they based their decision
on Gmelin, 1790, and Sherborn, 1902, since they could not obtain a copy
of Miller, 1773. Quite recently the Secretary has been able to examine a
photostat copy of Miller, 1773, and he concurs with the appellants that
the premises accepted from literature by Stiles and Hassall were erroneous.

4. Eight of the specialists referred to in paragraph 2 above in
due course furnished statements of their views for the considera-
tion of the Commission. These are reproduced in the following
paragraphs (paragraphs 5-14 below).

5. Views of Dr. Carl Allgen (Jonkoping, Sweden) : |
Dr. Allgen endorsed the request that the rules should be sus-
pended and that Tylenchus Bastian should be placed on the

Oficial List. He did not add any comments.

6. Views of Dr. J. H. Schurmans Steckhoven (Zoological Labora-
tory, University of Utrecht, The Netherlands) :

Having read your interesting manuscript I have the honour to tell you
that I quite agree with the premises as set forth in this document and that I
am in favour for the last sentence, whereby you [1.e. the petitioners] do re-
quest the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to set aside
the rules of priority*in this case, recognising Tylenchus and putting it on the
Official List, on grounds that enforcement of the rules would cause more
confusion than would suspension of the rules.

7. Views of Dr. H. A. Baylis (British Museum (Natural History),
London) :

My answers to your questions are as follows :—

(1) I do not agree with the premises as set forth in the document.
(2) My reasons for this are: (a) that Anguina Scopoli, 1777, has no
status, and (b) that Anguillulina has clear priority over Tylenchus.

The question of the validity of Anguina seems to depend on the question
whether Scopoli, in this instance, ‘‘ applied the principles of binary nomen-
clature’’’ (Art. 25, condition (b)). I have carefully studied Scopoli, Joc.
cit., and also the passage in Linnaeus’ 12th edition, p. 326, to which he
seems to refer. It seems to me that it cannot be maintained that Scopoli
here used a ““ binary ”’ system even of classification, while his nomenclature
is certainly not ““ binary,’ his ultimate unit being the genus. Nor is it at
all clear that Linnaeus intended to name the “‘ vermiculum ”’ referred to
in his footnote. Apparently it is included in the species Chaos ustilago.®

3 Here followed a short discussion of the meaning to be applied to the
term “ binary nomenclature,’’ which has been omitted for the reason that,
as explained in section (d) of paragraph 16 of the present-Opinion, the
decision embodied in this Opinion (in paragraph 17) was expressly taken
by the Commission without prejudice to the meaning of that term. See
also footnote 7.

298 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

are) ene) 0. ve

(4) Isee no reason for not accepting Anguillulina, which has clear priority
over Tylenchus, and has, in consequence of its acceptance by Dr. Goodey,
already begun to be accepted by those who work on plant pathology. I
am definitely opposed to the principle of nomina conservanda, and do not
consider there is a good case in favour of retaining Tylenchus.

8. Later Dr. Baylis wrote :—

I am unconvinced by Chitwood’s statement (1935, Proc. helm. Soc. Wash.
2:53) that “ the international rules . .. do mot imvalidate oldjeenera
which have been described without a specific name being mentioned.”’
This statement does not seem to me to be in accordance with the intention
of Article 25.

Incidentally, I might mention that the frequent quotation (as in the
original memorandum of Steiner, Hall and -others) of ‘“‘ Ehrenberg, 1825 ”’
as the author of Anguillulina, is incorrect. Sherborn has shown that
although Ehrenberg’s plates were published in 1828 (containing no mention
of this name) the text was not published until 1831.

9. Views of Dr. T. Goodey (St. Albans, England) :

My answers to your points are :—-

(1) Ido not agree with the premises set forth in the doouhene especially
with regard to the alleged status and suggested validity of Anguina Scopohi,
WIT
(2) I have closely studied Scopoli, 1777, to determine whether he satis-
fies the Law of Priority, Art. 25 of the International Rules of Zoological
Nomenclature and find that though it may be conceded that he satisfies
condition (a) he entirely fails to satisfy condition (b) in that he did not
apply the principles of ‘“‘ binary nomenclature.”’ He merely put forward
the generic name Anguina without an accompanying “‘ nomen triviale ”’
which is essential to satisfy “‘ binary’ principles. Since he failed to satisfy
condition (b) I consider that Anguina has no status. I have also studied
the passage in Linnaeus, 1767, and conclude that he did not propose a name
for the “‘ vermiculum.’’ The footnote on p. 1326 is, in my view, merely
a slightly expanded description of the material from deformed wheat grains
which is included under the species Chaos ustilago.

(3) For reasons stated above, I do not admit that under priority Anguina
is the correct name, and therefore, the second part of the Ques does not
call for discussion.

(4) I am not in favour of a suspension of the rules which would involve
the displacement of Anguillulina in favor of Tylenchus over which it has
clear priority. I dissent from the view that “‘ At present the literature is
in a state of flux ’’ for, in my opinion, the position with regard to these two
names is now well established since the name Anguztllulina has been adopted
in much recent specialist and non-specialist literature dealing with plant-
parasitic nematodes both in this country and on the continent of Europe.
In the U.S.A. also and in Canada the name has been adopted in recent
papers. It would, therefore, serve no useful purpose but would result in
added confusion to revert to the use of the name Tylenchus.

10. Later Dr. Goodey notified the Secretary to the Commission
that he favoured the suppression of the name Anguina Scopoli,
LE

* See, however, paragraph 16(e) of the present Opinion.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 299

11. Views of Dr. Halmar Ditlevson (Zoological Museum, Copen-
hagen, Denmark) :

I thank you very much for your communication as to the priority of the
names Anguina, Anguillulina, and Tylenchus.
My answer is the following :

(1) Yes, I agree with the premises set forth in your document.

(3) My opinion is that an application of the rules of priority in this
respect would produce greater confusion than conformity.

(4) I vote for suspension of the rules in this case and I vote for the
discarding of the name Anguillulina and the retaining of the name Tylen-
chus as this name will produce the lesser confusion.

12. Views of Dr. W. Schneider (Friedrichsfeld, Germany) :

Leider steht mir hier die Literatur vor 1866 (A. Schneider, Monogr.)
nicht zur Verfiigung, so dass ich mich zu den Fragen 3 nicht selbstandig
aussern kann. Aber auch dann, wenn dem Genus nach den Prioritatsre-
geln der Name Anguina mit Recht zustande, wiirde ich dennoch vorsch-
lagen, den Namen Tylenchus beizubehalten. Diese Bezeichnung ist in der
neueren Literatur die allgemein gebrauchliche, und es wiirde nur zu weiterer
Verwirrung beitragen, wenn sie aus Griinden der Prioritat durch Anguina
ersetzt wiirde.

Ebenso wenig vermag ich Peters zuzustimmen, wenn er fiir das Genus
Anguillula den Namen Turbatrix einfiihren will. Auch in diesem Falle
ist der bisherige Name allgemein iiblich. Aus dem Vorgehen von Peters
zu schliessen, dass die Frage der Umbenennung zur Zeit im Fluss sei,
halte ich nicht fiir richtig.

Meine Meinung ist also, dass man Anguina und Anguillulina weetallen
lassen sollte, dass aber Tylenchus Bastian (Type T. davaini Ba.) und
Anguillula Ehrenberg (Type A. aceti) beibehalten werden miissen,

13. Views of Dr. H. Goffart (Biolog. Reichsanstalt, Katzeberg b,
Kiel, Germany) :

Ich bin grundsatzlich der Ansicht, dass das Gesetz der Prioritat geachtet
wird und halte es: nicht fiir richtig, wenn von diesem Grundsatz abge-
wichen wird, auch dann nicht, wenn ein bestimmter Name—in diesem
Falle Tylenchus- bekannter sein sollte als ein anderer. Die Frage, ob dem
Namen Anguina die Prioritat vor Anguillulina gebuhrt, muss ich streng-
genommen verneinen, weil es sich bei Anguina um einen Namen handelt,
der zwar dem 25 Absatz (a) der Internationalen Regeln entspricht, aber
nicht der binadren Nomenklatur folgt (Absatz (b)). _Wirde man in diesem
Falle eine Ausnahme schaffen, und den Namen Anguina anerkennen, weil
aus der von Scopoli gegebenen Beschreibung hervorgeht, dass ihm dieselbe
Form vorgelegen hat, so wiirde man damit einen Pracedenzfall schaffen,
auf den man sich bei anderen Nomenklaturfragen berufen kann. Aus
diesem Grunde halte ich es wat fiir richtig, wenn der Name Anguillulina
abgeandert wird.

14. Views of Dr. I. N. Filipjev (Branch a the Academy of
Sciences, Almata Krazekstau, U.S.S.R.) :

I think that the reasons submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature for the inclusion of Tylenchus as the official
name for this genus are sound enough if one considers the genus not ecinag ole
in BanEnee ones.

300 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Such a division is attempted by me first on p. 32 > of my paper on ‘‘ The
Classification of the free-living Nematodes ”’ of 1934, where a division in
8 genera is proposed (some species are referred to old genera) as follows-:

(8) Anguillulina G. & B., or Anguina Scop. type tritici.

The nomenclatorial problem would arise practically in regard only to
the 8th genus where one of the two names is to be changed. On purely
practical grounds Anguina would be preferable, because today Anguillulina
and Tylenchus are treated invariably as being synonymous. Anguina
would signify a use of the proposed generic division. Tvylenchus s.str.
cannot, it seems, be avoided. My opinion is, therefore, that the rules of
nomenclature in this case should not be suspended and that Anguina
should be fixed for tvitic1, Anguillulina falling into synonymy.

In the case of Anguillula, | come to a conclusion different from that of
the authors of the present petition. Specific and subgeneric nomenclature
is not always clearly separated in the papers of the XVIIIth century,
including the works of Linnaeus himself. Miller quotes both Vibrio
anguillula and Anguillula aceti. Both meanings of Anguillula—species
with varieties or subgenus with species—are acceptable. The latter
meaning has the advantage of being a binary naming and can therefore
be accepted. It would secure the saving of an old—and prior to Bastian—
universally used name, the rejection of which should be avoided if at all
possible.

15. A Progress Report on various outstanding problems cir-
culated by Dr. Stiles to the Members of the Commission in June
1935 for use at the Session due to be held at Lisbon in September
of that year contained the following extract from a letter from
Commissioner Karl Jordan :—

As shown by his previous publications, Scopoli was a binary and binomial
author. In his Intvoductio ad Historiam natuvalem, wherein Anguina
appears as a new generic name, Scopoli gives a classification of Minerals,

Plants and Animals down to genera, as stated on the title-page. There
was no need for him to mention species, though he did so in many instances.

ITI.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

16. This case was considered by the International Commission
at Lisbon at their meeting held on Tuesday, 17th September 1935.
In the course of the discussion of the problems involved attention
was drawn to the following considerations :—

(a) There was complete lack of unanimity among the specialists who

had advised on this case :—

(i) Some accepted Anguina Scopoli, 1777, as available nomen-
clatorially ; others considered that it was not available, since,
in their opinion, it had been published in a work, the author

® Filipjev, 1934, Smithson. misc. Coll. 89 (No. 6) : 1-63, 8 pls.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. BOI

(b)

of which had not applied the principles of binary nomenclature
within the meaning of Article 25 of the International Code.

(ii) Of those that accepted Anguina Scopoli as available nomen-
clatorially, some favoured its suppression by the Commission
under their plenary powers; others considered that it should
be definitely brought into use for Vibrio tritict.

(iii) Among those who either rejected Anguina Scopoli or recom-
mended that it should be suppressed, there was disagreement
as to the name which should take its place. Some favoured
Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859; others considered
that that name should be suppressed in order to validate
Tylenchus Bastian, 1865.

The plenary powers granted to the International Commission by the
Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913 were

- only exercisable in cases where, in the judgment of the Commission,

the strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater
confusion than uniformity. The International Congress, in granting
these powers, had deliberately so defined them as to exclude their
use in cases where no more than inconvenience would result from the
strict application of the rules.

The powers granted to the Commission to suspend the rules could

therefore only be used where the Commission were satisfied that
certain conditions were fulfilled. The evidence brought forward
in the present case did not satisfy those conditions; there was,
therefore, no case for the suspension of the rules for the purpose either
of invalidating Anguina Scopoli and validating Anguillulina Gervais
and Beneden, 1859, or of invalidating both Anguina Scopoli and
Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden and validating Tylenchus Bastian.
The status of the name Anguina Scopoli depended on the question
whether in the work in which that name had been published Scopolt
had applied the principles of ‘‘ binary nomenclature.”’ The answer to
that question in turn depended on the meaning to be applied to that
term. This latter was a general question that was at present under
consideration by the Permanent Committee of the International
Zoological Congresses in connection with the procedure to be adopted
in regard to the resolution on this subject that had been voted upon
by the Eleventh International Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930.
It would clearly be improper for the International Commission to
prejudge whatever decision might ultimately be reached on this
matter; in consequence the Commission had in the meanwhile no
option but to interpret that term in the sense that had been approved
by previous meetings of the International Congress and had there-
fore been recognised as the correct interpretation prior to the question
being raised at the Padua meeting of the Congress. For the present
therefore at least, the Commission were bound by the interpretation
given in Opinion 20 and later Opinions dealing with the same subject.
Pending a final decision on this subject, the position was that generic
names published by authors who adopted a system of nomenclature,
which, though “ binary” in the sense that Gronovius, 1763, was

“Dpbinary ”’ (Opinion 20) was not a binominal system of nomenclature

must be regarded as satisfying the requirements of Article 25 of the
International Code.

If at some later date it were decided to redefine the term “‘ binary
nomenclature ’’ in the sense proposed at Padua, i.e. to secure that
that term was identical in meaning with the term “ binominal
nomenclature,’’ it would be necessary to re-examine Scopoli’s
Introductio ad Historiam naturalem to ascertain whether it fell within
the revised definition or whether it was excluded thereby. It was

302 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

argued by some of the specialists who had expressed views on the
present case that the narrower interpretation of the term “ binary
nomenclature ”’ would render this work of Scopoli’s unavailable for
nomenclatorial purposes; but this proposition had not been clearly
established. Scopoli, for whom Linnaeus had had a high regard, had
published in 1763 a work, the Entomologia caryniolica, which was
undoubtedly the work of an author who accepted the binominal
system of nomenclature. In order therefore to reject the Introductio
ad Histoviam naturalem, 1t would be necessary to prove that between
1763 and 1777 Scopoli had ceased to accept the binominal system of
nomenclature; it would not be sufficient for this purpose to show
that in that work or in parts of it he had not given particulars below
the level of genera. Moreover, in some parts of the Intvoductio
Scopoli had without doubt employed a strictly binominal system of
nomenclature (e.g. in the portion relating to the Lepidoptera Rho-
palocera).

17. At the conclusion of the discussion summarised in the
preceding paragraph, the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session,
4th Meeting, Conclusion 11 ®) :—

(a) that, for so long as generic names published by authors using a
binary, though not a binominal, system of nomenclature were
recognised as complying with the requirements of Article 25 of the
International Code,’ the generic names published by Scopoli in 1777
in his Intvoductio ad Historiam natuvalem should be accepted as
available nomenclatorially, but that the position should be re-
examined if later it were decided to reject generic names published
by authors not applying the binominal system ;

(b) that no case had been established for the “‘ suspension of the rules ”’
for the purpose of :—

(i) invalidating either Anguina Scopoli, 1777, or that name and
Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden, 1859, and

(i) validating Anguillulina Gervais and Beneden or Tylenchus
Bastian, 1865, as the case might be;

§ See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 37-38.

* At the time that this decision was taken by the Commission, the action
to be taken in regard to the meaning to be attached to the term “ binary
nomenclature,’ on-which a resolution had been voted upon at the Eleventh
International Congress of Zoology at Padua in 1930, was still under con-
sideration by the Permanent Committee of the International Zoological
Congresses. As stated in paragraph 14 of the Report submitted by the
Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon
(for the text of which see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1-: 55), the Permanent
Committee finally decided to refer the question dealt with in the resolution
referred to above to the Chairman of the Section on Nomenclature of the
(Lisbon) Congress. The Chairman of that Section, in turn, submitted it
to the Commission for deliberation and report. This invitation was
accepted by the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
3(b)) (for the text of which see Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1:45). In accordance
with that decision, a report on this subject will therefore be submitted
by the Commission to the International Congress of Zoology at its next
meeting. At the present time, therefore, the question of the meaning of
the expression “‘ binary nomenclature’’ (‘“‘nomenclature binaire’’) is
sub qudice.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 303

18. At their meeting held at Lisbon on the morning of Tuesday,
17th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion
17), Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through
ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had
been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted
by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by
the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the
Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in
spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ;
and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a
draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though
in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare
the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which
decisions had been reached during the Lisbon meetings of the
Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a) (iii)), he was there-
fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be the
more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those
matters which it was found impossible to include in the report,
owing to the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with
after the Congress on the basis of the records in the Official
Record of Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon
Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed
that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon
Session should be treated in the same manner, whether or not it
was found possible to include references to them in the report to
be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every such
decision should be treated as having been participated in by all
the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The
Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by Com-
missioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by
him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items to
be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress
in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained,
it was found impossible to deal in their report.

19. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available,
to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It

304 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under
the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in para-
graph 18 above.

20. The present Ofinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters ; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki ;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

21. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commniecinmey
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The following five (5)
Commissioners who were not present at Lisbon nor represented
thereat by Alternates did not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

22. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opimion,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV._AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Ofinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Ofimion, as set out in the summary
thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of
the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opa rendered
by the Commission ; and

—

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I60. 305

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signified
their concurrence in the present Opinion either in person or -
through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held in
Lisbon in September 1935; |

Now, THEREFORE,

J, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty (Opinion 160) of the said Com-
mission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twentieth day of May, Nineteen Hundred
_and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in
the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, 5.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature. —

This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—
(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International
Commission for deliberation and decision ;
(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with,
zoologists on proposals published i in the Bulletin under (a) above ; and
(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic
theory and practice.
The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were
published. Part 4 was pallens. in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the
press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenelature.

The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently.
namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of
which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declavations 1-9 and
Opinions 1-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

ane 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon
in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions
134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and
title page of the volume. Parts I-30, containing Declarations to-12 and
Opinions 134-160, have now been published. Further Parts will be
published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will
contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing Opinions 182-186) have
now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS |

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND Company, Ltp.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

Re +.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 30A. Pp. (1)-(44).

(TP-[I1]-lMI-XVI of Section A of volume 2 also
published with this Part)

CONTENTS

Supplementary Notes on Opinions 137, 148, and
149; Addenda and Corrigenda; Alphabetical
List of the names of authors who have either
contributed, or have furnished comments on,
proposals dealt with in Section A of volume 2;
Index to Section A of volume 2; Dates of
publication of the several portions of Section A
of volume 2; and Instructions to Binder.

(Also published with this Part: Title Page to
Section A, Foreword, Table of Contents and

Introductory Note)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945

Price eight shillings and twopence

Issued 5th December, 1945

_LeaaIAN INST ES

JAN 311946
“ATIONAL WUSESS—

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U:S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES ON OPINIONS
137, 148, AND 149

Opinion 137 (pp. 21-28)

Addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of Morpho
Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fab-
vicius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)

The object of the petition dealt with by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in Opinion 137 was to
obtain a definitive ruling on the question of which of pairs of
names of almost exactly equal date were the oldest available (and,
there, the valid) names for three genera in the Order Lepidoptera
(Class Insecta). The pairs of names in question were :—

(1) Morpho Fabricius, 1807, and Potamis Hubner, [1807]

Of the above genera, Morpho Fabricius, 1807, has, as
its type, Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758 (that species
having been so selected by Westwood, [1851], 77 Double-
day, Gen. diurn. Lep. (2): 341), and Potams Hiibner,
[1807] has, as its type, Potamis leonte Hiibner, [1807], by
monotypy. :

(2) Heltcopis Fabricius, 1807, and Rusticus Hiibner, [1807]

The type of Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, is Papilio cupido
Linnaeus, 1758 (that species having been so selected by
Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sct., Boston
10: 186). At the time when the case dealt with in
Opinion 137 was submitted to the International Com-
mission, the petitioner accepted Rusticus Hiibner as an
available name as from 1807, having Papilio gnidus
Fabricius, 1787, as type (that species having been so
selected by Hemming, 1934, Entomologist 67 : 156).1

1 Personal Note by Commissioner Francis Hemming: As it was by myself
that the case dealt with in Opinion 137 was submitted to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, I wish to take this opportunity
of correcting what I now see was an error in the portion of the ‘‘ statement
of the case’ relating to the names Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Rusticus
Hubner, [1807]. As explained in the “ statement of the case,” the name
Rusticus first appeared in Hiibner’s Tentamen, but in view of Opinion 97
it acquired thereby no rights under the Law of Priority. As explained in
that Opinion, rejected Tentamen names take status under the Law of
Priority as from the first subsequent occasion on which they are published
in conditions which satisfy Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. The

(6) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(3) Pontia Fabricius, 1807, and M ancipium Hubner, [1807]
The type of Pontia Fabricius, 1807, is Papilio daplidice

first occasion after the Tentamen on which the name Rusticus was published
was in 1807 when in volume 1 of his Sammlung exotischer Schmeiterlinge
Hiibner (on plates [102] and [104]) applied this name to two species, namely
Papilio aetolus Sulzer, 1776, and Papilio gnidus Fabricius, 1787. The
last-named species was selected by myself (1934, Entomologist 67 : 156)
as the type of Rusticus Hubner, [1807], and was treated as such when I
submitted this case to the International Commission.

2. What I did not realise at the time when I submitted this case was iHiat,
under the interpretation of Article 25 of the Régles Internationales given
by the International Commission in Opinion 1 (see 1944, Opinions and
Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clatuve 1 : 73-86), a generic name is published without an “ indication ”
(and possesses, therefore, no rights under the Law of Priority as from the
date of such publication), if the original author, without giving any “‘ de-
scription’’ or ‘‘ definition,’ merely assigned two or more species to the
genus and did not cite or designate one of the included species as the type
of the genus.

3. If in 1934 I had correctly realised the position under Article 25, I
should not have troubled the International Commission with this case, for
I should have seen that in no circumstances could the name Helicopis
Fabricius, 1807, have been invalidated on grounds of priority in favour of
Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], since the name Rusticus was published by Hiibner
in 1807 with two included species and without a cited or designated type
and in consequence was published without an “ indication.’’ The name
Rusticus Hiibner possesses, therefore, no rights under the Law of Priority
(Article 25) as from the date on which it was published by Hiibner in 1807.
It is, therefore, necessary to find the next occasion on which this name was
published. This is found to have been in 1808 (see Hemming, 1937,
Hiibner 2: 251), when (on plate [105] of volume 1 of the Sammlung exot-
ischer Schmeiterlinge) Hiibner applied it to the single species Papilio cupido
Linnaeus, 1758. The International Commission have laid it down in
Opinion 30 (which was published in 1911, Smithson. Publ. 2013 : 69-72,
and dealt with certain generic names for birds published by Swainson in
1827) that, where, by reason of the relative dates of publication of two
papers by a given author, that author accidentally includes only a single
species in a new genus, that genus is to be regarded as a monotypical
genus with the sole included species as its type, even where later the original
author makes it clear that he never intended to found.a monotypical genus
and that he intended some other species to be the type.

4. The position is, therefore, (1) that on each of the first two occasions
on which the name Rusticus Hiibner appeared in print (1.e. in 1806 in the
Tentamen and in 1807 on two plates in vol. 1 of the Samml. exot. Schmett.),
it appeared in conditions which conferred upon it no rights under the Law
of Priority, and (2) that on the next occasion on which this name was
published (7.e. in 1808 on a single plate in vol. 1 of the Sammi. exot. Schmett.)
it was published in conditions, in which, under Opinion 30, it must be
accepted as the name of a monotypical genus and, therefore, as being, under
Opinion I, a name which, when so published, was accompanied by an

“indication ” and thereby acquired rights under the Law of Priority as
from that date (1808). Accordingly, Rusticus Hibner is, for nomen-
clatorial purposes, a name published by Hiibner in 1808 for a monotypical
genus, having Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, as its type.

5. It can now, therefore, be seen that’ Rusticus Hiibner, [1808], is an
objective synonym of Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, since Papilio cupido
Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of both these genera.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (7)

Linnaeus, 1758 (that species having been so selected by
Curtis, 1824, Brat. Entom. 1: expl. pl. 48). The type of
Mancipium Hubner, [1807], is Papilio hellica Linnaeus,

1767, by monotypy.

2. Confusion rather than uniformity would certainly have arisen
if it had been necessary on nomenclatorial grounds to suppress, as
synonyms, the names Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabri-
cius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius, 1807, in favour respectively of
the names Potamis Hubner, [1807], Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], and
Mancipium Hibner, [1807], since each of the last three names
originally appeared in Hiibner’s Tentamen in senses entirely
different from those indicated above. These names acquired
considerable currency in the sense required by the Tentamen, prior
to the publication in 1926 of Opinion 97,2 in which the Interna-
tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature decided that the
generic names which first appeared in the Tentamen in 1806 have
no nomenclatorial status as from that date but rank as from the
next occasion on which they were published. The use of these
names in the sense indicated in paragraph 1 above would therefore
have caused great confusion and it was for this reason that the
International Commission were invited to use their plenary
powers to obviate this danger. The confusion so arising would
have been particularly marked in the case of Potamis Hiibner,
[1807], for it would have involved also the suppression of the
family name MORPHIDAE and the introduction of the new family
name POTAMIDAE. 3

3. At their Lisbon Session, the International Commission
decided to dispose of this problem once and for all by validating
the names Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807,
and Pontia Fabricius, 1807, under their plenary powers.

4. The Official List of Generic Names in Zoology was finally
brought into existence in 1913 by the Ninth International Congress
of Zoology at the same meeting as that at which the Congress
conferred upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary powers to suspend the rules as applied to
any given case, where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the rules in that case would clearly result in
greater confusion than uniformity. The object of the Congress

2 See 1926, Smithson. misc. Coll. 73 (4) : 19-30.
3 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

(8) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

in taking these decisions was to promote the stabilisation of
zoological nomenclature and it was always intended that the
power granted to the Commission to suspend the rules under the
plenary powers then granted to them should be used, where
necessary, to supplement and develop the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology. Accordingly, ever since the establishment of
the Oficial List, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature have made it their practice automatically to place
on the Official List every generic name which they have found it
necessary to validate under their plenary powers.

5. It was therefore part of the decision taken by the Interna-
tional Commission at their Lisbon Session that the names Morpho
Fabricius, 1807, Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, and Pontia Fabricius,
1807, which they then validated under their plenary powers,
should thereupon be added to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology. Unfortunately, as the result of the small amount of
time available at Lisbon and the great pressure under which, in
consequence, it was necessary to work, the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, in preparing the paragraph
(paragraph 19) of their report to the Twelfth International Con-
gress of Zoology, in which they recorded their decision to validate
under their plenary powers the three generic names discussed
above, inadvertently omitted to add that, in consequence of that
decision, they had decided also to add the three names, so vali-
dated, to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

6. The foregoing omission was first detected in 1943 when, as
Secretary to the International Commission, I made a systematic
examination of all the Opinions so far rendered by the Interna-
tional Commission, with the object of ascertaining what names
had so far been placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology. I at once reported the position to Commissioner Karl
Jordan, President of the Commission, who replied (2nd December
1943) as follows :—“‘ All generic names which have been validated
by Opinion of the Commission are thereby placed on the Official
List, whether the List has been mentioned in the Opinion or not.
It would inevitably lead to confusion, if some names were left out,
for zoologists might conclude that names so omitted had not the
same standing as that of names placed on the List. It will be
advisable in future to state in any Opinion validating a generic
name that the name so validated is thereby ‘ placed on the
Oficial List.’ ” |

7. In these circumstances, Opinion 137 is to be read as though

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (9)

it contained an express direction that the under-mentioned names
are thereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology
as Names Nos. 564 to 566 :—

Name of genus Type of genus
Morpho Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio achilles Linnaeus, 1758, Syst.
Insektenk. (iliger) 6 : 280 Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 463

(type selected by Westwood, [1851],
im Doubleday, Gen. diurn. Lep.

(2) : 341)
Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio cupido Linnaeus, 1758, Syst.
Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 285 Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 482

(type) selected’) by ) Scudder, 1875;
Proc. Amer. Acad. Avis Sci., Boston

10 : 186)
Pontia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, 1758,
Insehtenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283 Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 468

(type selected by Curtis, 1824, Brit.
Entom. 1 : expl. pl. 48)

SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the Commission

Secretariat of the Commission,
at the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7.

11th August 1945.

mK |
ae

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (11)

Opinion 148 (pp. 133-144)

On the status of a generic name proposed as an emendation of a
previously published generic name, where the earlier published
of the two generic names 1s later found to be invalid by reason of
being a homonym or otherwise

Opinion 148 lays down certain principles to be observed in
interpreting Articles 25 and 34 of the International Code in
relation to the availability of generic names proposed as emenda-
tions of, or as substitutes for, earlier generic names of the same
origin and meaning.

2. This problem was considered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature at their Session held at
Lisbon in 1935, when they agreed that, in view of the importance
of the principle involved, the decision embodied, but not clearly
enunciated, in Ofinion 120 (which was concerned expressly only
with the relative status of the names Achatinus de Montfort, 1810,
and Achatina Lamarck, 1799) should be re-stated in general terms
for the information of students in all branches of zoology.

3. The “ summary ” of Opinion 148 was drafted with the object
of giving effect to the foregoing decision, but on further examina-
tion it is now Clear that the effort then made to secure brevity in
the wording of the examples given in Sections (1) and (3) of the
“ summary ’’ unfortunately led to the use of phraseology which
in certain respects is ambiguous and which might in certain cir-
cumstances be misleading. The responsibility for the drafting
of this ‘‘ summary ” rests with myself as Secretary to the Interna-
tional Commission and I take this opportunity of expressing my
regret that the wording employed was not absolutely clear. The
present note is inserted here for the purpose of removing any
doubts which may have arisen as to the nature and scope of the
decision reached by the International Commission at Lisbon in
1935. References to this note have been included in the Foreword
to the present volume and in the Table of Contents and the Index
at those points at which reference is made to Opinion 148. It is
hoped that in this way the attention of any zoologist who consults
Opimion 148 will automatically be drawn to the explanation given
in the present note.

4. The point which it is here particularly desired to stress is
that it never was the intention of the International Commission

(12) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

to suggest that once a generic name published as an emendation
of an earlier generic name of the same origin and meaning has
been rejected as a synonym of that earlier name (as laid down in
Section. (I) of the “summary” of Ofinion 148), the name so
rejected remains unavailable for all time, irrespective of any
changes in the status of the earlier name which may later occur,
either as the result of the receipt of additional information in
regard thereto or for any other cause. Any such suggestion would
be manifestly contrary to the provisions of Article 25 of the
International Code.

5. Section (1) of the “ summary’ of Opinion 148: The problem
dealt with in this Section is that of the status of a generic name
(say, Achatinus) published as an emendation of a previously
published generic name (say, Achatina) of the same origin and
meaning, where the earlier published of the two names is itself
an available name under the Code. On this subject, Section {1)
of the “summary ”’ of Opinion 148 states that: “ Achatinus de
Montfort, 1810, being an emendation of Achatina Lamarck, 1799,
is to be rejected as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck.”

6. Nothing was said—nor was it considered necessary that
anything should be said—in Section (zr) of the “summary ” of
Opinion 148 in regard to what would be the status of the emenda-
tion Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, if it were found that the name
Achatina Lamarck, 1799, was for any reason itself a nomenclatori-
ally unavailable name. As Section (1) was drafted, it would,
however, be possible to interpret it as meaning that in such a case
the emendation Achatinus de Montfort, 1810, could not be brought
out of synonymy and used as the name for the genus hitherto
known as Achatina Lamarck, 1799, but now found to be without
a nomenclatorially available name. As already explained (in
paragraph 4 above), the International Commission at no time
had any intention of laying down any such proposition. Clearly,
under Article 25 of the International Code the oldest name for
a genus is the correct name for that genus if that name was pub-
lished in accordance with the several provisions of that Article
and if that name is otherwise available (for example, if that name
is not itself invalid as a homonym under Article 34 of the Code).
It follows, therefore, that, if for any reason it was necessary to
reject a generic name (say, Achatina) (for example, because it was
published without an indication, definition or description, or
because it was published by an author who did not accept the
principles of binary nomenclature) and if the senior synonym of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (13)

Achatina was the emendation Achatinus (and that name was not
invalid by reason—for example—of being a homonym), then the
emendation Achatinus, being the oldest available name for the
genus, would become its correct generic name from the nomen-
clatorial standpoint.

7. In order to remove any possibility of misunderstanding
regarding the meaning of Section (1) of the “summary”’ of
Obimion 148, it has been decided :—

(a) in line 3, after the words “ earlier name,’ to insert the words

where that name is itself an available name’’; and

(b) in line 6, at the beginning of the sentence following the
word “‘ Example,’ to insert the words “ Assuming that the

name Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is itself an available name.”

8. Section (3) of the “ summary ’”’ of Opinion 148: This Section
deals with the status of a generic name published as a substitute
for a previously published name of the same origin and meaning,
but the subject dealt with in Section (1) of the “ summary ”’ is
alluded to in the last sentence of the example given in Section (3).
As drafted, that sentence, which commences with the word “ If ”’
at the end of the 1st line but one on page 135 and concludes with
the words “ not available ”’ in line 2 on page 136, is both obscure
and in some respects definitely misleading. It has, therefore,
been decided to cancel and withdraw the last sentence of Section
(3) of the “ summary ”’ of Opinion 148.4

SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the Commission

Secretariat of the Commission,
at the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7.

12th August 1945.

4 The names selected to illustrate the principle laid down in Section (3)
of Opinion 148 were Protodryas and Prodryas, which were there stated to
be of the same origin and meaning. It should here be noted that the pre-
fixes “‘ Proto-”’ and ‘‘ Pyo-’’ are not of the same origin and meaning as one
another, although, when used in conjunction with the word “ dryas,’’ the
meaning of these words is substantially similar, each indicating that the
generic name so compounded is a substitute for an earlier generic name
yas.’

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (15)

Opinion 149 (pp. 145-160)

On the question whether ““ Sphingonothus ”’ or “ Sphingonotus ”’ zs
the correct spelling of the name originally published as Sphingo-
nothus Feber, 1852 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera)

One of the generic names placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology by Opinion 149 was the name originally pub-
lished as Sphingonothus Fieber, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. :
2 (type by monotypy: Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, Syst.
mee. Ned. £2) 1 (2) ? 701).

2. Ihe proposal that the above name should be added to the
Official List was originally submitted to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature by Commissioner Karl
Apstein in 1915. In that list this generic name was spelt “ Sphin-
gonotus.’’ The proposals relating to this and other names of
genera of the Order Orthoptera included in Commissioner Apstein’s
list were referred to Dr. A. N. Caudell, United States National
Museum, for advice (see paragraphs 1 & 2 of Opinion 149). In
the copy of Dr. Caudell’s report submitted to the International
Commission for consideration at their Lisbon Session in September
1935 this name was spelt “ Sphingonothus.” Accordingly, this
was the spelling used in the report then submitted by the Inter-
national Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 58).

3. At their Lisbon Session the International Commission were
much handicapped by lack of works of reference and they accord-
ingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion r(c), for
the full text of which see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 44) “to
authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after
the close of the Congress when works of reference were available
to him for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the biblio-
graphical and other references cited therein, and to correct any
errors that might be found before the text of the report was
officially published.’

4. In accordance with the foregoing decision all the names
included in the Commission’s report to the Lisbon Congress were
checked by myself on my return to London. In the case of the
generic name here under consideration, I found that “ Sphingo-
nothus’’ was the spelling used by Kelch when in 1852 ie first

(16) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

published this name, which had been devised by, but at that time
had not been published by, Fieber. I accordingly concluded that
the spelling “ Sphingonotus *’ in Commissioner Apstein’s original
application was a slip for “ Sphingonothus,’ the original spelling
of this name, and therefore that, as respects this name, no cor-
rection of the Lisbon report was required. It was for this reason
that, in preparing Opinion 149 to give effect to the Commission’s
decision in this matter, I used the spelling “ SAhingonothus”’ and
not the spelling “* Sphingonotus.”

5. Following the publication of Opinion 149, I received a letter
(dated 26th April 1944) from Dr. B. P. Uvarov, British Museum
(Natural History), drawing attention to the fact that the spelling
“ Sphingonothus ’”’ should be corrected to “ Sphingonotus.” Dr.
Uvarov furnished the following note explaining the position :—

The name Sphingonothus Fieber was published for the first time by Kelch
(1852, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2), with Gryllus caerulans Linnaeus, 1767,
as the only included species which made the genus monotypical and the
name nomenclatorially valid (vide Opinion 1 of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature).®

In 1853, Fieber himself published (Lofos 3 : 124) a diagnosis of the genus,
the name of which was then given as Sphingonotus. Thus, the spelling
Sphingonothus has a priority over Sphingonotus. The spelling Sphingo-
nothus, however, should be regarded as due to a printer’s error, for the
following reasons :—

(1) The list which Fieber supplied to Kelch for publication was stated
(Kelch, loc. cit.: 3) to have been extracted from a manuscript
work by Fieber entitled :—‘‘ Die Ovthoptera Euvropas.” Fieber’s
own paper (1853, loc. cit. 3 : 90) had the title :—‘‘ Synopsis der euro-
paischen Orthopteren mit besonderer Berticksichtigung auf die im
Bohmen vorkommenden Arvten als Auszug aus dem zum Drucke
vorliegenden Werke ‘ Die europaischen Orthopteren.’’’ It is clear
that in both cases extracts were made from the same manuscript
(which has never been published).

(2) It appears highly probable that Fieber did not take any direct part
in the publication of Kelch’s list, and certainly did not read its proofs,
since the list contains several obvious misprints in the names of
groups and genera described by Fieber, e.g. Campylosteivae instead
of Campylostivae, Euthyteivae instead of Euthystivae and Psopha
instead of Psophus.®

(3) In Fieber’s own publication (1853) the Greek derivation of the name
Sphingonotus was given as “ omuyyéw schniiven und votog Riicken,”’
making it quite clear that Fieber could not have used the spelling
Sphingonothus as printed by Kelch.

(4) Not a single one of all subsequent writers on Orthoptera have used
the spelling Sphingonothus, all ignoring it as a misprint.

Conclusion. ‘The spelling of the name Sphingonothus contains a proven

> See 1944, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86.

§ For a further discussion of the names Psopha Fieber, 1852, in Kelch,
and Psophus Fieber, 1853, see sub-paragraph (1) of paragraph 9 of Opinion
149 (pp. 154-155 above).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. 5 (7)

typographical error and this case falls therefore within the provisions of
Article 19 of the International Code. Under the Code, therefore, the
correct spelling of this name is Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852, and this spelling
should be adopted for this name in the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology.

6. The evidence brought forward by Dr. Uvarov shows con-
clusively that, having regard to the derivation of the name, the
spelling ‘“‘Sphingonothus’’ is erroneous and that the correct
spelling is “* Sphingonotus.”’

7. Dr. Uvarov further claims that the spelling “ Sphingono-
thus”’ is an evident typographical error for “ Sphingonotus ”’ and
therefore that, under Article 19 of the Régles Internationales
(International Code), the corrected spelling “ Sphingonotus ”’ is
automatically the spelling which should be used. As in case of
dispute the sole substantive text of the Régles Internationales is
the French text (the English, German and Italian texts being
only translations of that text), it is necessary at this point to
examine the French text of Article 19, in order to determine
whether the present case falls within the scope of that Article.

6. Article 19 im the substantive French text of the Régles
Internationales reads as follows :—

19.—L’orthographe originelle d’un nom doit étre conservée, a moins
qu'il ne soit évident que ce nom renferme une faute de transcription,
d’orthographe ou d’impression.

g. It may very well be the case, as Dr. Uvarov suggests, that
the spelling “ Sphingonothus ”’ used by Kelch in 1852 is due to a
‘“faute d’impression ’’ made during the printing of Kelch’s work.
It is equally possible, however, that the error of spelling may have
been due to a miscopying by Kelch of the list furnished to him by
Fieber, in which case the spelling “ Sphingonothus’’ is to be
rejected, under Article 19, as a “ faute de transcription.” How-
ever this may be, it is perfectly clear from the evidence brought
forward by Dr. Uvarov, that the spelling “ Sphingonothus ”’
represents an error of orthography and, therefore, that, under
Article 19, that spelling is to be rejected as a “ faute d’ortho-
graphe ” in favour of the spelling “ Sphingonotus.”’

10. I very much regret that I was not aware of the subsequent
history of this name at the time when, in accordance with the duty
imposed upon me by the International Commission at their Lisbon
Session,’ I examined the report which they then submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, with a view to cor-
recting any errors on questions of fact which, through lack of

7 See paragraph 3 above (p. (15) ).

(18) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

works of reference at that Session, might inadvertently have been
included in that document. The present opportunity is, there-
fore, taken to place on record that, wherever the spelling ‘‘ Sphin-
gonothus ”’ occurs in Opinion 140, it should be corrected to “ Sphin-
gonotus.’ The correct spelling of the generic name placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by that Opinion is, there-
fore, Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852.

SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE
FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the Commission

Secretariat of the Commission,
at the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7.

15th August 1945.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (r9)

ADDENDA ET CORRIGENDA
| Opinion 134

Page 5, eleventh line from foot of page: Substitute ‘‘ Ninth ”’ for
peoixth.

Page 6, line 8: Substitute “ Ninth ”’ for “ Sixth.”

Opinion 135

Page i1, thirteenth line from foot of page: Substitute “ Ninth ”
fon orth.”

Page 12, line 6: Substitute ‘ Ninth ”’ for “ Sixth.”’

Opinion 136

Page 15, ninth line from foot of page: At end of sentence after
the date “1810,” insert the words “should be accepted as
designation of types of the genera in question.”’

Opinion 137

Page 21, last line of ““Summary’’: At end insert the following
sentence: “ The names Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio
achilles Linnaeus, 1758), Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio
cupido Linnaeus, 1758), and Ponta Fabricius, 1807 (type:
Papilio daplidice Linnaeus, 1758) are hereby added to the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 564 to 566.”’

Opinion 148

Page 135, line 3 of Section (1) of ‘‘ Summary’: After the words
“earlier name,” insert the words “ where that name is itself an
available name.”

Page 135, line 6 of Section (1) of ““ Summary’: At the beginning

(20) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

of the sentence following the word “ Example,” insert the words
‘““ Assuming that the name Achatina Lamarck, 1799, is an available
name.”

Page 135, last line but one: Delete the sentence commencing
with the word “ If ’’ and ending (on line 2 oH page 136) with the
words “ not-available.”’

‘Opinion 149

Page 147, last line but one of ““ Summary” : Substitute “ Sphin-
gonotus ”’ for “ Sphingonothus.”

Page 147, paragraph 1, last line but two: Substitute ‘‘ Sphingo-
notus Fieber’’ for ‘‘Sphingonothus Fieber (as Sphingonotus).”” -

Page 150, line 25: Substitute “ Sphingonotus”’ for “ Sphingo-
nothus.’’

Page 157, line 2: Substitute “ SAhingonotus’”’ for ‘ Sphingo-
nothus.”’

Opinion 160

Page 291, title of Opinion, line 2: Between the word “ Gervais ”’
and the word “ van,’ insert the word “ and.”

Page 297, paragraph 6, line 1: Substitute “ Stekhoven ”’ for
pobeckhovenas aa

Page 2098, paragraph 8, line 9: Substitute “ Anguillula”’ for
“ Anguillulina.”’ | PO is,"

Page 299, paragraph 11, line 1: Substitute “ Ditlevsen ”’ for
“ Ditlevson.”’

Page 299, paragraph 14, line 2: Substitute “ Alma-Ata,
Kazakhstan ”’ for “‘ Almata, Krazekstau.”’

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (21)

ALPHABETICAL LIST
OF

THE NAMES OF AUTHORS WHO HAVE EITHER CONTRI-
BUTED, OR HAVE FURNISHED COMMENTS ON, PROPOSALS
DEALT WITH IN THE DECLARATIONS AND OPINIONS
INCLUDED IN SECTION A OF VOLUME 2.

Alfken, J. D., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, I99-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Allgen, C., 207

Apstein, K., 147, 211, 216, 265

Arnold, G., 38-40, 91-92, I71-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Babiy, P. P., 38—40, OR oe. I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Baker, A. C., 83, 214-215

Balouf, W. V., 38-40, QI-92, I7I-172, 199-201, oe 253-
255, 277-280

Bather, F. A., 216

Baylis, H. A., 297-298

Bell, E., 114, 243-244

Benoist, R., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279 :

Benson, R. B., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255, 277-280

Bequaert, J., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Berland, L:, 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Betrem, J. G., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255, 277-279

Bischoff, H., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, I99-20I, 229-230, 253-255,
277-280

(22) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Bradley, J. C., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279 ,

Brauns, H., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Brues, C. T., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Caudell, A. N., 148, 212-213, 266

Chitwood, B. G., 293-296

Christie, J. R., 293-296

Comstock, J. A., 114, 243-244

Crevecoeur, A., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255» 277-279

Curran, C. H., 114, 243-244

Cushman, R. A., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255» 277-279; 285-286

Ditlevsen, H., 299
dos Passos, C. F., 114, 243-244

Dusmet, J. M., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Elliott, E. A., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Enderlein, G., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,

WN ll eee)

Enslin, E., 38-40, QI-92, I7I-172, I9Q-20I, 229-203, 253-255,
277-279

Filipjev, I. N., 299-300
Forbes, W. T. M., 114, 243-244

Fouts, R., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-I72, IgQg-20I, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. (23)

Friese, R., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Frison, T. H., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Gahan, A. B., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Goffart, H., 299

Goodey, T., 298

Grandi, G., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Gunder, J. D., 114, 243-244

Habermehl, H., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255» 277-279 |

Hacker, H., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,

— 277-279

Hall, M. C., 293-296

Handlirsch, A., 38-40, 91-92, 148, I7I-172, 199-201, 216, 229-
230, 253-255, 206, 277-279

Handschin, E., xix

Haupt, H., 38-40, a I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Hedicke, H., 38-40, 91-92, 17I- 172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-280

Heinrich, C., 214-215

Hellen, W., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
_ 277-279

Hemming, F., 15-16, 23-25, 69, 70-71, 73-74, II2-I13, 125-126,

136-138, 241-242, (5)-(9), (x1)-(13), (15)-(18)

Horvath, G., 216

Huntington, E. R., 114, 243-244

(24) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Ihering, H. von, 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-

255, 277-280

Jordan, K., 216, 300, (8)

Kinsey, A. C., 38-40, eae I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230,
Sy aS)

Klots, A. B., 114, 243-244

Kolhew Heal. 216

Krausse, A., 38-40, QI-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230,

277-279

Kruger, E., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230
277-279

Kuznezov-Ugamtsky, N. N., 38-40, De I7I-172,
229-230, 253-255, 277-280

Lautner, G.; xx

Lutz, F. E., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230,

277-280

‘Lyle, G. T., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230,

ANS

McDunnough, J., 113-114, 243-244
Maidl, F., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230,
271279

Mann, W. M., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230,

277-279

Marriott, H. de W., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201,

253-255, 277-279

Masi, L., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230,
277-280

Micha, I., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, I99-201, 229-230,
2775479

Monticelli, F. S., 216

253-255;

253-255,

>: 2 ogee,

199-201,

253-255,

253-255;

253-255;
253-255;
2290-230,
253-255;

253-255)

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. ime E25)

Oglobin, A. A., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
ASD SA Timea le),

Park, A. R., 38-40, onae, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Pate, V.S. L., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Pirlot, J. M., 58

Richards, O. W., 38-40, vee I7I- Te foo 229-230, 253-
255, 277-279 -

Riley, N. D., 69

Rohwer, S. A., 214-215, 221, 233, 270-271, 284-285

‘Ross, ele Ed, 38-40, QI-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279 |

‘Roth, P., 38-40, 91-92, te. 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
aD

Bea delnecht, O., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230,
- 253-255, 277-280 |
Schneider, W., 299

Schulthess, A. von, 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, poo een, 229-230,

253-255, 277-280 %

Schwarz, H. F., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255, 277-280

Silvestri, ae 61-62

Skinner, H., 216

Steiner, G., 293-296

Stekhoven, J. H. Schurmans, 297

Stiles, C. W., 213-214, 216

Stone, W., 61

Thorne, G., 293-206

(26) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Ticehurst, C. B., 31

Uchida, T., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

Ugamtsky, N. N. Kuznezov-, see Kuznezov-Ugamtsky, N. N.

Uvarov, B. P., (16)—(17)

Vogt, O., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, I99—-201, 220-230, 253-255,
277-279

Wagner, A. C. W., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230,
253-255, 277-280

Watson, F. E., 114, 243-244

Weld, L. H., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255;
277-280

Wheeler, W. M., 38-40, 91-92, I7I-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255, 277-279 |

Wilkinson, D. S., 38-40, 91-92, es 199-201, 229-230, 253-

ae Bi ae

Willams, F. X., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-
255, 277-279

Williams, Jr., R. C., 114, 243-244

Wolff, M., 38-40, 91-92, 171-172, 199-201, 229-230, 253-255,
277-279

—$<——

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

INDEX
TO SECTION A OF VOLUME 2
(Declarations 10-12, Opinions 134-160)

abdominalis Panzer, [1798], ae ‘ype of Astata
Latreille, 1796

acervorum Panzer, [1799], Blatia, ‘ype of Myrmeco-
philus Berthold, 1827

Achatinus de Montfort, 1810 (=emendation of
Achatina Lamarck, 1799)

To be rejected as a synonym of Achatina Lamarck,

(27)

PAGE

37-44

147-158

1799, if that name is available . 135-140, (11)—(13)

Type of, is automatically the same species as the
type of Achatina Lamarck, 1799

achilles Linnaeus, ree ae pe of Morpho Fabri-

135-140

eis, 1807 . 23, (5), (9), (19)

actaea Esper, [1780], Papilio, designated as the type of
Satyrus Latreille, 1810, under suspension of the rules .

Anguillulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859
No case established for the suppression of, under
suspension of the rules, in favour of Tylenchus
Bastian, 1865 .

No case established for the validation of, under
suspension of the rules, by the suppression of
Anguina Scopohi, 1777

Anguina Scopoli, 1777
Name to be regarded as available under the
Régles Internationales pending a decision on the
meaning of the expression “ binary nomen-
clature ”’

No case established for the suppression of, under
suspension of the rules, in favour of either Anguil-
lulina Gervais and van Beneden, 1859, or Tylen-
chus Bastian, 1865 .

69-78

293-395

(28) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Anthophora Latreille, 1803, placed on Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the
ile

aptera Charpentier, 1825, ee DEE of Chelidura
Berthold, 1627 39.

Arge Schrank, 1802, placed on ee List a Generic
Names in Zoology ;

Astata Latreille, 1796, placed on ee List o i Generic
Names in Zoology

ASTATIDAE, replacement of the family name by the
family name CEPHIDAE

Astatus Jurine, 1801, invalidation of, by the suppres-
sion of Jurine’s “Erlangen List ’’ under suspension
of the rules .

atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio, type of Vanessa
Fabricius, 1807

Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau and Serville,
1825, placed on the ere List ue Generic Names in
Zoology

bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758, [chneumon, designated as the
type of Torymus Dalman, 1820, under suspension of
the rules

Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803], placed on the ca
List of Generic Names in Zoology

“ binary nomenclature,’ meaning of the expression, as
used in Article 25 of the Régles Internationales at
present sub judice

Borus Albers, 1850 (Phylum Mollusca), to be rejected as
a homonym of Borus Agassiz, 1846 (= emendation of
Boros Herbst, 1797) (Class Insecta, Order Coleo-
ptera) : 2 : : : :

I7I-177
147-158

253-260
37-44

37-44

241-248

147-158

229-236

199-206

301-302

135-140

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, oe type of hg
tus Fieber, 1852

caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758, ci — of age
Latreille, 1829 j

Callimome Spinola, 1811, suppression of, under suspen-
sion of the rules .

cardui Linnaeus, 1758, ae ie of Cie Fabri-
cius, 1807

CEPHIDAE, re-instatement of, as a family name in the
Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in place of the
name ASTATIDAE . ! ’

Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803], placed on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology . :

Chelidura Berthold, 1827, placed on the ee List o
Generic Names in Zoology

Cimbex Olivier, 1790, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the
mules:

Code of Ethics, question of breaches of

Code of Zoological Nomenclature, International (see
Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique)

Colias Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names 1n Zoology under suspension of the
mules)

Crabro Fabricius, 1775, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names 1n Zoology under suspension of the
mules.

Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, suppression of, under suspension
of the rules .

cribrarva Linnaeus, 1758, Vespa, designated as the type

of Crabro Fabricius, 1775, under suspension of the
rules .

Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805], placed on the Offczal
List of Generic Names in Zoology

(29)

PAGE

147-158
147-158
229-236

241-248

37-44

147-158

gI—96

1 MEX CXET

ICICI eS}

gI—96

g1—96

gI—96

253-260

(30) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
cupido Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio, type of Helicopis on
‘Fabricius, 1807. ; 2A, (5), (0) po)
Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, not to be used in preference to
Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, on grounds of page priority 241-248

daplidice Linnaeus, ee ee type of Pontia Fabri-
cius, 1807. 0.) a4 (Soe
Declaration 1 (Code of Ethics), Declaration supple-

mentary to, adopted by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature . : X1X—XXil1

description of new genera and species, need for giving
in the, a'clear indication of the Order and Family |
concerned . : : : , » | Xai,

digitata Coquebert, 1804, Acheta, a synonym of T7-

dactylus paradoxus Latreille, [1802-1803 | i 155
Diprion Schrank, 1802, placed on the Hs List y

Generic Names in Zoology. 253-260
Dryinus Latreille, [1804], placed on the a List

of Generic Names in Zoology . 199-206

enodis Linnaeus, ie Tenthredo, a hye of es Schrank,
RO OZ . 253-260

Epmaltes Gravenhorst, 1829, placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of

themes). . 277-289
Epaltes Schrank, 1802, suppression of, under suspen-
sion of the rules . : : . 277-289

ertphyle Freyer, 1836, Hipparchia, not to be treated as
having been published as a species of the genus Papilio
Linnaeus, 1758 . : i 3-6

“Erlangen List’ of Jurine (L.) published anonymously
by Panzer in 1801, suppression of, under suspension
of the rules . : pte ee : d ; Q-12

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Ethics, question of breaches of Code of

Eumastax Burr, 1899, placed on the a st Of
Generic Names in Zoology

extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon, designated as
the type of Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, under sus-
pension of the rules

Fabricius (J. C.), precedence to be accorded to certain
generic names in the Order Lepidoptera (Class
Insecta) published by, in 1807, in relation to other
names published for the same genera in the same
year by Hubner (J.)

falcata Poda, 1761, Gryllus, designated as the type of
Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, under suspension of the
fanles)

Family, need for giving a clear indication of the, in the
description of new genera and species

formicarius Latreille, [1804-1805], ie: ‘ype of
Dryinus Latreille, [1804]

Freyer (C. F.), Neuere Beitrage zur Schmetterlingskunde,
1833-1858, method to be adopted in interpreting the
generic names assigned in, to species there described
for the first time .

fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, Omalus, designated as the
type of Bethylus Latreille, oe on under sus-
pension of the rules i

Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852, placed on the ee ist :
Generic Names in Zoology

gigantea Klug, 1820, A aka ls of ae
Klug, 1820 .

glaber Fieber, 1852, Dectlicus] maculatus var. (= Lo-
custa glabra Herbst, 1786)

(31)

DEAGE
XIX—XX111

147-158

277-289

23-28

211-224

X1—X1V

199-206

3-6

199-206

147-158

152

(32) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

glabra Herbst, 1786, Locusta, type of Gampsoclets
Fieber, 1852 x : ‘ H : 4

Gryllacris Serville, 1831, placed on the Cnn List
Generic Names in Zoology

Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802-1803], placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology :

gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, oe of pee
Latreille, [1802-1803 |

Helicopis Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the

PAGE

147-158
147-158
147-158

147-158

rules . : } , : 5 ; . 23-28, (5)-(9)

Hemimerus Walker, 1871, placed on the ee. List of
Generic Names in Zoology

Jebclonaers |()|.)
Precedence to be accorded to certain generic names

in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) published .

by, in 1807, in relation to other names published
for the same genera in the same year by Fabricius
(sn@2) ey ie

Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic], dates of
publication of the several portions of .

hyale Linnaeus, 1758, Papilio, designated as the type of
Colias Fabricius, 1807, under suspension of the rules

Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758, placed on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the
mules)”:

instigator Fabricius, 1793, Ichneumon, designated as the
type of Pimpla Fabricius, ee a, under sus-
pension of the rules

Jurine (L.), 1801, “ Erlangen List,’ suppression of,
under suspension of the rules

147-158

23-28
163-167

T1I-118

277-289

Q-I2

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Labia Leach, 1815, placed on the oe List Me Generic
Names in Zoology :

_Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], placed on the ce
List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of
the rules

Lasius Panzer, [1801-1802], suppression of, under sus-
pension of the rules

Latreille (P. A.), 1810, Considérations générales sur
V ordre naturel des Animaux composant les classes des
Crustacés, des Avachnides et des Insectes avec un
tableau méthodique de leurs genres disposés en famulles,
method to be adopted in determining whether the
type of a genus included in the Table méthodique is
there selected in accordance with the provisions of
Article 30 of the Régles Internationales

Leptophyes Fieber, 1852, placed on the TEE: List of
Generic Names in Zoology

lilifolia Fabricius, 1793, Locusta, type of Tylopsis
Fieber, 1853 : : . :

Locusta Linnaeus, 1758
7 Name of a Linnean subdivision of a genus (Gryllus

Linnaeus, 1758) and therefore not of subgeneric

value as from date of being so published (1758)
(Opinion 124), validated under iy of the
rules

Placed on the Official List hag Cae Names in
Zoology under suspension of the rules .

lutea Linnaeus, 1758, Tenthredo, designated as the type
of Cimbex Olivier, 1790, under suspension of the
miles’):

maculicollis Serville, 1831, hie oe of ee
Serville, 1831

Mancipium Hibner, [1807], suppression of, under
suspension of the rules .

(33)

PAGE

. 147-158

Le 707,

Lely

15-19
147-158

211-224

265-273

205-273

gI—96

147-158

23-28

(34) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
r p 5 PAGE
mantfestator Linnaeus, 1758, Ichneumon, designated as
the type of Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829, under sus-
Pension of the mules 77 . ! . 277-289

Mantis Linnaeus, 1767, placed on the es List of
Generic Names in Zoology. . 147-158

Meigen (J. W.), 1800, Nouvelle Classification des
Mouches a deux ailes, status of generic names pub-
lished anyay |). : : : : : : . 183-193

Merope Newman, 1838 (Class Insecta), method of
forming the family name for . : - 49-51

MEROPEIDAE, correct form of family name for Merope
Newman, 1838 . ; : : : » 49-51

MEROPIDAE, correct form of family name for Merops
Linnaeus, 1758 ; : i : : - 49-51

Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (Class Aves), method of forming
the family name for . ‘ : : ; - 49-51

migratoritus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, designated as the
type of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, under suspension of
ues : ‘ : : : : . 265-273

minor Linnaeus, ay JP, ee ‘ype of Labia Leach,
HOH 5). 4 . 147-158

Misocampe Latreille, 1818, suppression of, under sus-
pension of the rules. ; : . 229-236

monstrosus Drury, 1773, ee ‘ype of a
Brullé, 1835 ! 147-158

Morpho Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the

Roleswe : } i ; i . 23-28, (5)-(9)

MUSCIDAE, type of the family, automatically Musca
Linnaeus, 1758, by reason of the stem of the generic
name being used in the formation of the family
name . : : : : : - 57-65

Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827, placed on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology. ; : E47 eS

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Neuere Bettrége zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833-1858,
method to be adopted in interpreting the generic
names assigned by Freyer (C. F.) in, to species there
described for the first time :

new genera and species, need for giving a clear indica-
tion of the Order and Family involved

migra Linnaeus, 1758, Formica, designated as the type
of Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805], under suspension
orehe rules : :

Nomenclature, International Code of (see Régles
Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique)

nomenclature of particular divisions of the Animal
Kingdom, importance of forming specialist groups
for the study of

Nouvelle Classification des Mouches a deux ailes, status
of generic names introduced by Meigen (J. W.) in

obscura Walker, 1869, Tarraga, oo. of eas
sis Walker, 1871

oculata Klug, 1820, Proscopia, shown not to be the type
Proscopia Klug, 1820 :

Oedipoda Latreille, 1829, placed on the ofa. List 2
Generic Names in Zoology

Official List of Generic Names in Zoology, addition to,
of :—
Anthophora Latreille, 1803 (Name No. 695) .
Arge Schrank, 1802 (Name No. 603)
Astata Latreille, 1796 (Name No. 568)
Bacillus Le Peletier de Saint Fargeau and Serville,
1825 (Name No. 573)
Bethylus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Name No. 6)

Cephus Latreille, [1802-1803] (Name No. 567)
Chelidura Berthold, 1827 (Name No. 574)

(35)
3-6

XI—X1V

1l1—-V

183-193

147-158
154

147-158

I7I-177
253-260

37-44

147-158
199-206
37-44
147-158

(36) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Cimbex Olivier, 1790 (Name No. 571) .

Colias Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 572)

Crabro Fabricius, 1775 (Name No. 570)
Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Name No. 602)
Diprion Schrank, 1802 (Name No. 604)
Dryinus Latreille, [1804] (Name No. 597)
Eplualtes Gravenhorst, 1829 (Name No. 608)
Eumastax Burr, 1899 (Name No. 575)
Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852 (Name No. 576)
Gryllacris Serville, 1831 (Name No. 577)
Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802-1803] (Name No. 578)

91-96
111-118
91-96
253-260
253-260
199-206
277-289
147-158
147-158
147-158
147-158

Helicopis Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 565) 23-28, (5)—(9), (19)

Hemimerus Walker, 1871 (Name No. 579)
Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 606) .
Labia Leach, 1815 (Name No. 580)

Lasius Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Name No. 594)
Leptophyes Fieber, 1852 (Name No. 581)
Locusta Linnaeus, 1758 (Name No. 605)

Mantis Linnaeus, 1767 (Name No. 582)

147-158
277-289
147-158
171-177
147-158
205-273
147-158

Morpho Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 564) 23-28, (5)—(9), (19)

Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827 (Name No. 583)
Oedipoda Latreille, 1829 (Name No. 584)

Phaneroptera Serville, 1831 (Name No. 598)
Phyllium Mlliger, 1798 (Name No. 585)
Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805] (Name No. 607)

147-158
147-158

211-224

147-158

277-289

Pontia Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 566) 23-28, (5)-(Q), (19)

Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871 (Name No. 586)
Proscopia Klug, 1820 (Name No. 587)
Psophus Fieber, 1853 (Name No. 588)

Saga Charpentier, 1825 (Name No. 589)
Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Name No. 569)

147-158
147-158
147-158
147-158

69-78

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

(37)

PAGE

Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835 (Name No. 590) . 147-158
Sphingonotus Fieber, 1852 (Name No.

591) 147-158, (15)—(18), (20)
Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838 (Name No. 592) 147-158
Torymus Dalman, 1820 (Name No. 600) 2290-236
Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 (Name No. 593) 147-158
Tylopsis Fieber, 1853 (Name No. 599) 211-224
Vanessa Fabricius, 1807 (Name No. 601) 241-248

Opinion 11 (interpretation of type designations by

Latreille (P. A.), 1810, Consid. gén.) supplemented

and amplified by Opinion 136 : : - I5-19
Opinion 124 (status of Linnean subdivisions of genera),

status of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758, determined in

accordance with provisions of : 265-273
Order, need for giving a clear indication of, in descrip-

tions of new genera and species X1—X1V
Bey adons Latreille, [1802-1803], ne ne of

Tridactylus Olivier, 1789 147-158
Phaneroptera Serville, 1831, placed on the Official List

-of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the

mulesh 211-224
Phylliium Mlliger, 1798, placed on the eae List :

Generic Names in Zoology 147-158
pilipes Fabricius, 1775, Apis, designated as the type of

Anthophora Latreille, ee under suspension of the

mules! . 171-177
Pimpla Fabricius, [1804-1805], placed on the Official

List of Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of

the rules 277-289

pim Linnaeus,

1758, Tenthredo,
Schrank, 1802 ; ‘

type of Diprion

253-260

(38) OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

PAGE

Podalirius Latreille, 1802, suppression of, under sus-
pension of the rules. ; 2 Lge

Pontia Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the

TUES) is : : - 23-28, (5)-(9)
POTAMIDAE not to replace MORPHIDAE ; (7)
Potamis Hiibner, [1807], suppression of, under sus-

pension or the tolesnan : : anh Zens
Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871, placed on the Officzal

List of Generic Names in Zoology . : . 147-158

Proscopia Klug, 1820, placed on the te List of
Generic Names in Zoology. ‘ . 147-158

Protodryas Reuss, 1928 (substitute for Prodryas Reuss,
1926, invalid because a homonym of Prodryas
Scudder, 1878) not to be rejected as a homonym of
Prodryas Reuss, 1926, on the ground that it is of the

same origin and meaning . . 135-140, (13)
Psopha Fieber, oes a en of ee a
O20) 154

Psophus Fieber, 1853 (nom. nov. pro Psopha Fieber,
1852) placed on the ee List : Generic Names
in Zoology . : : . 147-158

punctatissima Bosc, 1792, Locusta, type of Lepto- :
phyes Fieber, 1852 : : : . 147-158

pyemaeus Linnaeus, 1767, Suirex, SYP E of Cephus
Latreille, [1802-1803] . : A Ae ey 4k

Régles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique
Article 4, principles to be observed in interpreting
provisions relating to the naming of families and
subfamilies . f : : : : » 57-605

Article 25, method to be adopted in interpreting
the amendment in, relating to the need for the
citation of a “ definite bibliographic reference ”’

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

in the publication of any substitute name,
adopted by the Tenth International Congress of
Zoology at Budapest in 1927 .

Article 25, rejection under, as a synonym of a pre-
viously published name, of a generic name
published as an emendation of that name,
where the two names are of the same origin and
meaning and the earlier name is available

(39)

PAGE

31-34

40, (Ua (is), (iO), (20)

Article 25, status under, of a name first published
in a work rejected for nomenclatorial purposes
and subsequently re-published

_ Article 34, a generic name published as a substitute

(nom. nov.) for a name which is unavailable by

reason of being a homonym, not to be rejected

on the ground that it is of the same origin and
meaning as the name for even it is ee as

a substitute .

Article 34, principles of Ulan to . ob-
served in relation to the rejection, as homonyms,
of generic and subgeneric names of the same
origin and meaning as names previously pub-
lished

Article 34, rejection under, as a homonym, of a
generic name, where the same name has pre-
viously been published as an emendation of
some other previously published generic name

IOI-I05

135-140

125-129

which is itself available . 135-140, (11)—(13), (19)—(20)

Article 35, paragraph of, relating to the conditions
in which the trivial name of a species is to be re-
jected as a homonym of the trivial name of some
other species of the same origin and meaning
applicable, under Article 34, to generic and sub-
generic names

“ definite bibliographic Cee meaning of the
expression, aS used in proviso (c) to Article 25

Family, an author establishing a, free to select as
the type genus of that Family whatever taxono-
mic unit he considers the most appropriate

125-129

31-34

5709

(40)

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Family, authors establishing a, advised to select
as the type genus, the best-known and common-
est taxonomic unit concerned .

Family, name of, necessarily based upon the name
of its type genus

Family name not based on the name of its type
genus should be referred to the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature with a
view to its being conserved as an exception,
under suspension of the rules, where the Family
name in question was proposed by an early
author and is now well established .

Family, type of, definitely and unambiguously
designated by the selection of the stem of an
included genus for the formation of the Family
name

Family, type of, need not be the genus having the
oldest available generic name in the Family

Generic name published as an emendation of a
previously published generic name, type of a,
automatically the same species as the type of
the earlier name so proposed to be emended

homonym, conditions in which a generic or sub-
generic name is to be rejected as a, when the
name is of the same origin and meaning as a
previously published generic or subgeneric
name

homonym, name first published in a work rejected
for nomenclatorial purposes not to be treated as
a, when next re-published but to rank for
priority as from date of such re-publication

veligiosus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, type of Mantis
Linnaeus, 1767 , : :

rossia Rossi, 1790, Mantis, type of Bacillus Le Peletier
de Saint-Fargeau and Serville, 1825

PAGE

57-65

135-140

125-129

IOI-I05

147-158

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Rusticus Hiibner, [1807], suppression of, under sus-
pension of the rules : ‘ :

_ Saga Charpentier, 1825, placed on the oe List y
Generic Names in Zoology :

Satyrus Latreille, 1810, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in 00) under suspension of the
rules .

Schizodactylus Brullé, 1835, placed on the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology .

Scopoli (G. A.), 1777, Introductio ad Historiam natura-
lem, status of, not finally determined, pending de-
cision regarding meaning of the expression “ binary
nomenclature ’’ as used in Article 25 of the Régles
Internationales, but new names published therein to be
accepted as being available until the above question
is decided

serrata Fabricius, 1793, Locusta, ype of Saga Char-
pentier, 1825 :

siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, oe mS of Phyllium
Illiger, 1798 ;

Sphingonothus Fieber, a < he ae Fieber,
1852) . :

Sphingonotus (= emendation of Sphingonothus) Fieber,
1852, placed on the aoe List of Generic Names

in Zoology . ‘ : HAZ US) (5)

Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838, placed on the Official
List of Generic Names 1n Zoology

stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, Gryllus, type of Psophus
Fieber, 1853 ; : : :

talpa Burmeister, 1838, Stenopelmatus, ne of Steno-
pelmatus [re se 1838 :

(41)

PAGE

23-28

147-158

69-78

147-158

293-395
147-158

147-158

8), (20)
147-158

147-158

(42)

talpoides Walker, 1871, Hemimerus, type of ode
Walker, 1871 , |

tenuis Perty, 1832, Mastax, obs of Eumastax Burr,
1899 ; : :

TINGIDAE, correct form of family name fon Tingis
Fabricius, 1803

Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (Class Insecta), method of

forming family name for

Torymus Dalman, 1820, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology under suspension of the
mulls}

Trnidactylus Olivier, 1789, placed on the Te Last of
Generic Names in Zoology :

touchena Mathews, 1934, Tvochalopteron, not published
In accordance with the provisions of Article 25 of
the Régles Internationales as a substitute for the
name 7. yunnanensis La Touche, 1922

Tylenchus Bastian, 1865, no case established for valida-
tion of, under suspension of the rules, by suppression
of Anguwina Scopoli, 1777, and Anguillulina Gervais
and van Beneden, 1859

Tylopsis Fieber, 1853, placed on the ee List a
Generic Names in Zoology

Vanessa Fabricius, 1807, placed on the Official List of
Generic Names 1n Zoology under suspension of the
Tesi.

Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge |sic], dates on which
the several portions were published by Hiibner (J.)

viduatorius Fabricius, [1804-1805], ee pe of
Cryptus Fabricius, [1804-1805]

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

PAGE

147-158
147-158
83-87

83-87

229-236

147-158

oes

293-395

QII-224

241-248
163-167

253-260

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. ~ (43)

DATES OF PUBLICATION OF THE SEVERAL PORTIONS OF
SECTION A OF THE PRESENT VOLUME ®

Title Page, Foreword, Table of Contents
and Introductory Note (pp. fa atay
(published with Part 30A) 5th December 1945

a5 i-xvi (Parts 18 & 19)
XVli-xxiv (Part 22) .
1-20 (Parts 1-3)
21-34 (Parts 4 & 5)
35-66 (Parts 6-8)
67-88 (Parts 9 & 10)
89-98 (Part 11)
99-132 (Parts 12-14)
133-144 (Part 15)

145-168 (Parts 16 & 17) .
169-196 (Parts 20 & 21) .
197-238 (Parts 23-25)

251-290 (Parts 27-29)

(

(
239-250 (Part 26)

(

291-306 (Part 30)
()-(44) (Part 30 A).

24th May 1944
12th July 1944
28th August 1939
30th October 1942
30th January 1943
25th March 1943
30th March 1943

30th September 1943

26th October 1943
gth December 1943
24th May 1944
12th July 1944
17th October 1944
21st February 1945
17th April 1945
5th December 1945

8 These particulars are given on the last page of the present volume in
accordance with the requirements of Declaration 8 (1943, Opinions and
Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-

clature 1 : 57-64).

(44) INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

INSTRUCTIONS TO BINDER

The pages comprised in Section A of volume 2 of Opinions and
Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature are to be arranged for binding in the follow-
ing order :—TP-[II|-III-XVI, i—xxiv, 1-306, (1)-(44).

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
rendered by the |

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Koological Nomenclature

VOLUME 2, SECTION B

(comprising Opinions 161—181 and
Directions 2 and 4—9)

LONDON :

Printed by Order cf the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature
and sold on behalf of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
by the International Trust at its Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

LB DS

“_

biy

F
e
5
:
stk
rs A 1
hes 7

B. Ul

FOREWORD

It was decided in 1945 to divide the present volume into
two continuously-paged Sections. Section A was closed after
the publication of Part 30 and accordingly included Declarations
10 to 12 and Opinions 134 to 160.

The present Section (Section B) contains the remainder of the
Opinions adopted by the Commission at its Session held at Lisbon
in 1935 (Opinions 161 to 181). It contains also seven Directions
(Directions 2, and 4 to 9) adopted by the Commission in 1954.
These Directions contain supplementary decisions which were
required in order to complete not only the Opinions included
in Section B but also those included in Section A in respect of
those matters specified in the General Directives in regard to the
form and content of Opinions issued to the Commission by the
Thirteenth and Fourteenth International Congresses of Zoology
held respectively at Paris in 1948 and at Copenhagen in 1953.
The subjects covered by these Directives have been explained in
the general Foreword to the present volume (: (VII)—(X])).

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

25th January 1955

nae

ean ge

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 31. Pp. 307-318.

OPINION 161.

Suspension of the rules for Argynnis Fabricius,
1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945

Price three shillings

Issued 21st June, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.5.A.).

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.)

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

v
SLAY mY eps / =
‘ Uj; ‘,

*
Tz*
+
)

Yi yes

a)
~o oth
Nou 2D 1949

™, NVA r es
~~ Lh, iif iN Al

OPINION 161.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR ARGYNNIS FABRICIUS,
1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared
(i) that Argyreus Seopoli, 1777 (type: Papilio niphe Linnaeus,
1767 = Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763) is not to be substituted
for Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio paphia Linnaeus,
1758) ; (ii) that Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, is therefore valid ; but
(iii) that this decision will not affect! the validity of Argyreus
Scopoli, 1777, in so far as that name is otherwise available,?
in the event of it being found desirable on taxonomic grounds to
place Papilio niphe Linnaeus and Papilio paphia Linnaeus in
different genera. The name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807 (Class
Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), with type Papilio paphia Linnaeus,
1758, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as Name No. 609.

fe EE STATEMENT OF THE CASE:

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 23rd February 1934, in
which the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of London
drew attention to the conclusions reached by the Lepidoptera Sub-
Committee * of the Society’s Committee on Generic Nomencla-
ture,’ regarding the generic names of certain of the British
Lepidoptera, in regard to which both the Lepidoptera Sub-
Committee and the Committee on Generic N omenclature were of
the opinion that the strict application of the rules would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity. The Society enclosed
a copy of the Report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee (published
that day as Part 2 of the Generic Names of British Insects), to
which was attached a paper by Commissioner Francis Hemming,
in which was given a full statement in regard to each of the names

1 On the question of the availability of Scopoli’s Introductio ad Historiam
natuvalem, in which Aygyreus Scopoli was first published, see Opinion
re (summary and paragraphs 16(d) and (e) and 17 0n pp. 293 and 301-302
: > This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis
Hemming (Chairman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams.

_* This Committee was then composed as follows :—Sir Guy Marshall

(Chairman), Dr. K. G. Blair, Mr. Francis Hemming, Dr. O. W. Richards,
Mr. N. D. Riley, and Professor W. A. F. Balfour-Browne (Secretary).

310 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

in question. One of these names was Avgynmis Fabricius, 1807
(Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283).

2. The following is an extract from the paper referred to above
of the passage relating to this genus :—

ARGYNNIS Fabricius

Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 283
Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Avach. Ins. : 440

TYPE (fixed by Latreille) = Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758

Note 1.—The name Argynnis Fab., 1807 (type Papilio paphia Linn.)
is a perfectly valid name in the sense (a) that it is not a homonym of any
older generic name Arvgynnis and (b) that there is no older valid generic
name having the same species as its type. Unfortunately in 1928 Reuss
selected (Int. ent. Z. 22:146) Papilio niphe Linn., 1767 (= Papilio
hyperbius Linn., 1763) as the type of Argyreus Scop., 1777 (Intr. Hist. nat. :
431). This fixation is valid under the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature and it follows therefore that if, as most systematists agree,
Papilio paphia Linn. (the type of Argynnis Fab.) is congeneric with Papilio
niphe Linn., the name Argynnis Fab. should be sunk as a synonym of
Argyveus Scop. ee}

During the whole of the nineteenth century, the “ Fritillaries ’’ were
universally known by the generic name Avgynnis Fab., and the great
majority both of the Palaearctic and Nearctic species were originally
described under that name. It is only in recent years that an effort has
been made to substitute the name Dryas Hb., 1806, for Avgynnis Fab.,
1807, but this effort never won any considerable degree of support in view
of the unsatisfactory character of the Tentamen of Hibner in which this
name appeared. Since the publication of Opinion 97 of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature declaring against the validity of
the Tentamen, the name Dryas Hb. (as applied to Papilio papmia Linn.,
which would have been its type, if the Tentamen had been valid) has been
dropped and the name Argynnuis Fab. has again been universally applied
both in Europe and America to Papilio paphia Linn. and the species
congeneric therewith.

No attention has been paid by systematists to Reuss’s effort to bring
forward the name Arvgyreus Scop., on the ground, no doubt, that to use this
name in place of Avgynnis Fab. would cause an entirely unnecessary
disturbance in existing practice and would create far more confusion than
would a suspension of the rules in this case. The matter should not, how-
ever, be allowed to rest where it is, and the present universal, but tacit and
irregular, acceptance of Avgynnis Fab. in preference to the older Argyreus
Scop. should be regularised as soon as possible.

_ 3. The paper from which the foregoing passage is an extract
concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee
would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature
of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it was highly
desirable that in the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon
them by the International Congress of Zoology, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as possible
take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of
an Opinion to the following effect :—

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I6I. 311

The name Arvgynnis Fab., 1807 (type Papilio paphia Linn., 1758) is
hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Argyreus
Scop., 1777 (type Papilio niphe Linn., 1767) is, therefore, not to be sub-
stituted for Avgynnis Fab., 1807, though it is available for use for Papilio
niphe Linn., 1767, by such systematists as regard that species as generically
distinct from Papilio papa Linn.

4. These conclusions were concurred in by the Lepidoptera
Sub-Committee by whom they were submitted to the Committee
on Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed the view of
the Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of the Royal
Entomological Society of London to approach the International
Commission in the sense indicated. It was in accordance with
this recommendation that the Council of the Society addressed
to the Commission the letter referred to in paragraph 1 above.

P—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

5. Before the International Commission had time to take any
action on this case, they received a letter on the same subject
(dated 17th May 1934) from Dr. J. McDunnough, Chief of the
Division of Systematic Entomology, Entomological Branch,
Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, from which the following is :
an extract :—

I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the
current number of the ‘“ Canadian Entomologist.’”’ You will see by this
that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the
fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I
am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in
favour of such procedure. . .

_ 6. The following is an extract from the note furnished by Dr.
McDunnough :—

ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES
(Lepid. Rhopalocera)

To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic and
Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the ‘‘ Generic
Names of British Rhopalocera ’’ will prove of great interest. This pam-
phlet has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the
Royal Entomological Society of London, and includes full details regarding
type fixation and synonymy. Appended to the list is the first report of
the Lepidoptera. Sub-committee to the main committee, and following
Mr. Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of the Law of Priority in four
cases is advocated by this sub-committee, the ground being that strict
application of the rules would cause serious, and quite unnecessary, dis-
turbance in existing practice.

312 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

The genera involved, with their proposed genotypes, are as follows :—
Argynnis Fabr. (P. paphia Linn.) ;

J. McDunnough, Entom. Br. Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada. May
15, 1934.

Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934.

John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles,

> Calui]SApr. 20).hoOs4r

Wane. V0. Forbes, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y.
APESi7, TOR4.

Roswell C. AWilliarns, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, 19th & Race Sts., Philadel-
plia, Par Apr 7 lose

E. Irving Huntingdon, 115 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. April 21, 1934.

Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934.

Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934.

C. H. Curran, Amer. Mus. Nat. Bist. NY. City. Apr: 23 ;se37e

Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934.

Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr.
24, 1934.

7. Asa first step, the International Commission decided to invite
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to
report on the present application. This case was accordingly
considered by the International Committee at their meeting held
at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology. After careful considera-
tion, the International Committee agreed to recommend the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take
such action under their plenary powers as might be necessary: to
secure that in no circumstances should the name Avgyreus Scopoli,
1777 (type Papilio mphe Linnaeus, 1767) replace the wmanie
Argynmis Fabricius, 1807 (type Papilio papa Linnaeus, 1758).
This, and other, recommendations adopted by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid
meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of
Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September
7935: a

III —THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY. THE INTERNA-
: TIONAL COMMISSION.

“UB When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature.met at Lisbon immediately. after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IOI. B53

found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness -
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate con-
sideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under
suspension of the rules ”’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question
should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after
the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should
be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period
of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was
despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case
of the generic names Avgynnis Fabricius, 1807, and Argyreus
Scopoli, 1777, was one of the cases in question and was accordingly
dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure.

g. This case was considered by the International Commission
later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when the Commission
agreed * :— |

(a).t0* ies the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :—

_ (d) to declare that the generic name Avgyveus Scopoli, 1777, Intr. Hist.
fae W431 (type: Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)

1 (2) : 785) (= Papiho hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. Acad.

: 408) is not to be substituted for Avgynnis Fabricius, 1807 (type :
Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 481); that the
name Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, is therefore valid; but that this
decision would not affect the validity of the name Avgyveus Scopoli,
1777, in so far as it is otherwise available,® in the event of it being
found desirable on taxonomic grounds to place Papilio niphe Lin-

+ Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 20-23.

5 See footnote 1.

314 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED .,BY THE INTERNATIONAL

naeus (= Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus) and Papilio piohes Linnaeus
in different genera;

a @ ‘eee (©

(i) to add the genericnames . . . Avgynnis Fabricius, 1807, . . . tothe
Official List of Generic Names, with the type as indicated above;

e (¢ ©: \@ a “ie

(1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (1) above.

10. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of

the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.
_ 11. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission |
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
8 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
- where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than. uni-
formity.° In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement,
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
present case,.no communication of any kind has been addressed
to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opinion in the terms proposed.

12. The present Opinion was concurred in by the tele (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; — Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

6 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IOI. 315

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

13. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter.

14. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain ; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

15. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
| OPINION.

WueErEAs the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
-mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

’ WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

316 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission-on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty One (Opinion 161) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
‘Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion. _

DonE in London, this twenty third day of May, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION IOI. BIU7/

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6
are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing
Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

318 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE,

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

_needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work
without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however
small, will be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘‘ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed °** Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C. B. EE

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 32. Pp. 319-334.

OPINION 162

Suspension of the rules for Bracon Fabricius,
[1804-1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price four shillings

(Ali rights reserved)

Issued 21st June, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.53.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). '
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.)

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 162.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR BRACON FABRICIUS,
[1801-1805] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) all existing type
designations for Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805], are set aside, and
(ii) Ichneumon minutator Fabricius, 1798, is hereby designated
as the type of that genus. The name Bracon Fabricius, [1804—
1805] (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera), with the type indicated
above, is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as Name No. 610.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

THE CASE OF THE GENUS BRACON

The genus Bracon Jurine (“ Evlangen List,” 1801) was assigned by its
author two species, [chneumon desertor and denigrator. In the Systema
Piezatorum Fabricius (1803 1) adopted Jurine’s genus for the same two
species and others.

Spinola (1808, Insect. Liguriae, v. 2 p. 97 & 101) indicated that what
Fabricius meant by desertor was different from the Linnaean desertor, and
renamed the Jatiey species (although it had priority) deflagratory. Subse-
quent authors have accepted this distinction, but by reason of the fact
that they have all placed the Fabrician species in a different genus from the
Linnaean, they have used the name desertor for each. Bradley, however,
(1919) has renamed the Fabrician Species desectus.

Overlooking the “ Erlangen List,” authors have ascribed the genus
Bracon to Fabricius, 1803,! instead of to Jurine, 1801.

In including desevtor in Bracon, Fabricius cites Ichneumon desertor of
Linnaeus. It follows * that the Linnaean species and not what Fabricius
actually had before him is the included species, and Curtis (1829, Brit.
Ent. 2, Expl. pl. 69) definitely cites it, Ichneumon desertor Linnaeus, as type
of Bracon. This si ulee is therefore type regardless oy whether we ascribe
Bracon to Fabr., 1803,1 or Jurine, 1801.

1 Fabricius’s Syst. Piezat. was probably published in the early part of
1805 but may have been published at the end of 1804. It was not published
as early as 1803 (see Griffin, 1935, 1m Richards, Tvans. R. ent. Soc. Lond.
83 :144). It should be dated 1804-1805, the date being cited in square
brackets.

* This deduction is subject to certain qualifications. See Opinions 65
and 168,

322 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

But all authors for three fourths of a century, until 1914, have used
Bracon in a sense as though another originally included species, Bracon
minutator were type, and this was (incorrectly) designated type by Foerster,
1862. In this sense it has been used for the name of an enormous and
abundant genus of parasitic Hymenoptera, and as type of the subfamily
BRACONINAE and the great family BRACONIDAE.

Viereck (1914) pointed out that desevior L., the true type of Bvracon, is
type of the genus Cvemnops which belongs to a different subfamily. The
subfamily name BRACONINAE has accordingly been transferred by some
writers from its accustomed sense to the group that is ordinarily termed
AGATHINAE OF AGATHIDINAE. Correspondingly the name VIPIONINAE has
been applied to the subfamily previously known as BRACONINAE (see
Bradley, 1919, p. 57), raised by Viereck (1916) to the rank of a family.

In view of the confusion resulting from the transfer of names among
these common, well-known genera, one of them of enormous size, and in
view of the fact that important subfamily names are involved (and accord-
ing to Viereck, 1916, family names), the undersigned respectfully request the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to take such action
as it may see fit to relieve the situation, recommending the following :—

(rt) to suspend the rules in the case of the genus Bracon;

(2) to permanently reject the genus Bracon Jurine, 1801, type Ichneumon
desevtoy Linnaeus; and all type designations of desevtoy Linnaeus or
of desertor Fabr. as type of Bracon Fabr. ;

(3) to validate Bracon Fabr., 1803,1 and the designation by Foerster,
1862, of Bvacon minutator Fabr. as its type;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names Bracon Fabr., 1803,+
type Bracon minutator Fabr., for the genus of parasitic wasps
ordinarily known by that name.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International
Commission :—

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns f

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A, BGahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin —
Et erison:= J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards

Pena eel eee R. Fouts Pee Bali

H. H. Ross * G. Arnold Vo 5. Pace

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley

W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

G. I. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * mn ©. Kanseys * O. Vogt Ff

E. A. Elhott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +

A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger f

W. M. Mann F, Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Ensln F. X. Williams f

H. von Lhering t A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht f
A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. N. Kuznev-
H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky tT

H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * F, E. Lutz

L. Masi - D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

* JIn accord with results sought by the petition without having studied
the points involved in the particular case.

+ Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not included in his reply.

t Deceased.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 323

te tHE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY. OF THE CASE.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International
Commission in January 1935, when it was arranged that it and
the other Hymenoptera cases submitted at the same time should
be dealt with at the meeting of the Commission due to be held at
Lisbon in September of that year, by which time the recom-
mendations of the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature would be available.

4. This case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid in the
second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the
Committee decided to frame its recommendations to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature on the following
basis: (i) it was highly desirable that the plenary powers should
be used to prevent a transfer of the genus Bracon Fabricius from
its present position to an entirely different subfamily; (ii) the
most convenient course to secure this end would be for the Com-
mission, acting under their plenary powers, to designate I[chneumon
minutator Fabricius as the type of Bracon Fabricius; (iii) if, as
the International Committee had already decided to recommend,
the “ Erlangen List ’’ was suppressed by the International Com-
mission under their plenary powers, no other action would be
required, but, if the Commission could not see their way to adopt
that recommendation, it would be necessary for them to suppress
Bracon Jurine, 1801 (Erlangen List) in order to validate Bracon
Fabricius, [1804-1805].

5. [hese and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee at its meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium
Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

324 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 |
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion g) that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “ under
suspension of the rules’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question
should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after
the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should
be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period
of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was
despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case
of Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805], was among the cases in question
and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure.

7. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13), the International Com-
mission unanimously agreed to use the plenary powers conferred
upon them by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at
Monaco in 1913, in order to suppress the “‘ Erlangen List.’’ 3
When, therefore, at their meeting held on the afternoon of the
same day the Commission came to consider the present case, they
found that there was no need to make use of their plenary powers
to validate Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805], since the earlier name
Bracon Jurine, 1801, had ceased to be available on the suppression
of the “ Erlangen List.’’ After careful consideration, the Com-
mission came to the conclusion that, in view of the circumstances
set out in the petition, the name Brvacon Fabricius presented one
of the “ transfer ’’ problems of the kind specifically contemplated
in Article 3 of the ‘“‘ Plenary Powers ’’ Resolution adopted by the
Ninth International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913.4
Further, the Commission were unanimously of the opinion that

3 See Opinion 135 (1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 7-12).

4 For the text of the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International
Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1913, see Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions

and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 325

the strict application of the rules as applied to the name Bracon
Fabricius would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.
Having thus decided in principle that the proper course in this
case was to make use of their plenary powers, the Commission
discussed how best those powers could be used to meet the
requirements of the present case. After a full discussion, the
Commission reached the conclusion that the most satisfactory
procedure would be to set aside all existing type designations for
this genus and to designate Ichnewmon minutator Fabricius as its
type. The Commission accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 2) > :—

7 2 2 © @ ©

(c) under ‘“‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations
for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus

(26) Bracon Fabricius, [1804— Ichneumon minutator Fabricius,
1805], Syst. Piezat. : 102 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 225

(d) under “ suspension of the rules”’ to place on the Official List of
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

8. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the
report® which at their meeting held on Wednesday, 18th September
1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6)
unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International
Congress of Zoology.

g. At the same meeting’ the Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that Commissioner Karl
Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the
Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such
arrangements, and to take such other action, as might appear to
them to be necessary or expedient :—

(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ;

(11) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time
to time by the Commission ;

5 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 of the znd Meeting of the Lisbon
Session, which relate to the present case, are here quoted. For the full
text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 27-30.

§ See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59-60.

7 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 48.

326 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their
Lisbon Session ;
(iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-
mission; and generally

(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by —
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted
at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph-
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.® In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules for
Bracon Fabricius, one communication only has been addressed to
the Commission raising objection to the suspension of the rules
in this case. This communication, which was dated 1st March
1937, and bore the signature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed
to the Commission in the name of the Committee on Nomen-
clature of the Entomological Society of Washington.

12. The passage in the document received from the Committee
on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of Washington
relating to the present case reads as follows :—

THE CASE OF BRACON F., 1804 ®

Bracon was first published by Jurine, 1801, in the so-called Erlangen
List,!° with two included species, Ichneumon desertor L. and I. denigvator
L. Fabricius, 1804,9 used the name Bracon for those two species and added

8 See footnote 4.

® For the correct date of this name, see footnote 1.

10 For the suppression of the “ Erlangen List,” see Opinion 135 (1939,
Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature 2: 7-12).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 327

several more, including minutator F. The first valid type designation Was
by Curtis, 1825 (Brit. Ent. 2, Exp. pl. 69), who named desertor L. type of
Bracon. ‘The suppression of the ‘“‘ Erlangen List,’’ which we have recom-
mended,?° will not, therefore, affect this case.

Until it was shown by Viereck, 1914 (Bull. 83, U.S. Nat. Mus.) that the
true desertor L. is also the type of Cremnops Foerster, 1862, the name Bracon
was generally misapplied. By reason of this information it became
necessary to transfer Bracon, and the subfamily name BRACONINAE, from
the cyclostomine groups of BRACONIDAE, to which they had been applied,
to the subfamily previously known as the AGATHININAE; and through
isogenotypy Cvemnops became a synonym of Bracon.

Foerster, 1862 (Verh. Naturh. Ver. preuss. Rheinl., vol. 19, p. 235) either
disregarded or overlooked the previous type fixation by Curtis and named
B. minutator F. type of Bracon. This species is congeneric with Micro-
bracon sulcifrons Ashm., type of the monobasic genus Microbracon Ashm.,
1900. The literature of the past twenty years treating this group under
the name Muicrobracon has been rather extensive, this name having been
employed much more consistently in this proper sense than. has Bracon
in the correct sense of Cremnops. Certain specialists in BRACONIDAE, while
correctly using Muicrobracon for Bracon in the Foersterian concept, are at
the same time employing Cvemnops instead of Bracon for the genus typified
by Ichneumon desertor L., thus not recognizing any group under the name
Bracon, the type genus of the family.

It cannot be maintained that placement of Bracon F., with minutator
F. as type, on the Official List of Generic Names will avoid or lessen con-
fusion arising from the long-continued misapplication of Bracon. We
insist, on the contrary, that greater confusion would result from such action.
Microbracon is being correctly employed by most of the active workers in
the BRACONIDAE for the group to which minutator belongs. Using the name
Bracon in the sense demanded by the Rules Morrison, 1917 (Proc. U.S. Nat.
Mus. v. 52 : 305-343) published a revision of the North American species
of this genus. Likewise following the dictates of the Code, Muesebeck,
1925 (Proc. U.S. Nat. Mus. v. 67, Art. 8, pp. 1-85) revised the large group
of N. American species belonging to Mucrobracon and in 1927 (Proc.
U.S. Nat. Mus. vol. 69, Art. 16, pp. I-73) published a revision of the sub-
family BRACONINAE. Countless determinations of specimens have been
made on this basis and the records published in numerous lists and in
biological and other papers in all parts of the world. Undoubtedly more
critical taxonomic work has been conducted in these groups during the
past twenty years, under a nomenclature entirely in accord with the Rules,
than in any similar period. To overturn this nomenclature now, as has
been proposed, would throw all this work into serious confusion. We
respectfully urge, therefore, that, in the interest of stability, the Com-
mission refuse to suspend the Rules in the case of Bracon F.

13. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of
the document from which the passage quoted in paragraph 12
above has been extracted were communicated (April 1937) to
each member of the Commission, but since that date no member
of the Commission has expressed himself as being in agreement
with the objections raised in the document quoted in paragraph 12.

14. The only other communication received by the International
Commission on this subject is a letter (dated 11th June 1939). from
Dr. O. W- Richards (London), in which he expressed the following
view :—

328 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

In itself there would probably be no hardship in using Microbracon,
though it means changing the name of a large subfamily. I think there
would be grave disadvantages however in transferring the generic name
Bracon and the subfamily name to another subfamily in the group. I
think the best courses are either :—

(a) adopt Microbracon for Bracon auct. and Cremnops for Bracon Fab.
and make Bracon Fab. a synonym of Cremnops by suspension of the
rHles OL

(b) suspend the rules completely, i.e. Bracon Fab. = Bracon auct.
Microbracon ; or

15. The representations set out in paragraph 12 above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of
the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in
London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution
adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on
18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9
above). The Plenary Conference (Plenary Conference, Ist
Meeting, Conclusion g) 14 :—

(b) examined the communications that had been received during the
prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :—
(iv) Bracon Fabricius, [1804-1805]
from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington

in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Com-
mission immediately after their receipt, no member of the Commis-

sion had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the

representations contained therein ;

(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought
forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

' when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in
favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them
by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in
resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year;

Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that —

Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated in
paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by that
Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September

1935.
11 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case

are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 76-77.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 329

16. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates oe Amaral vice Cabrera: Ohshima vice Esaki;
leradiey vice stone; Beier vce Handlirsch : Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

17. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session
_has any Commissioner who was neither present on that. occasion
nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement
with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this
matter.

18. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain ; Chapman ; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

ig. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
_ plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
_where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals named in the said
Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was
unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules;
and |

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

330 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspen-
sion of the rules as applied to the present case has been given to
two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FrRANcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opfznion on behalf of the Inter-
national- Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty Two (Ofinion 162) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Ofznion.

Done in London, this first day of June, Nineteen Hundred and
Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the
archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 162. 331

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
_were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6
are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.
The above work is being mene in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume t. This volume will contain Declarations I-g (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Ofimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing
Opimons 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

332 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly ‘to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up
to 31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently
needed in order to enable the Commission to continue their work
without interruption. Contributions of any amount, however
small, will be most gratefully received. .

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘°‘ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PL a es ae TO At RL OG) et pot ec ee

: is aye

-
7
'
.
‘
‘
j
ii
:
X
}
43 «
es
= Ae
;
y
%
j -
4
/
1
\
E Bi
ad ,
: :
. ;
y
>
: i
\
i
5
B
8 '
: :
Z

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 33. Pp. 335-346.

OPINION 163

Suspension of the rules for Euploea Fabricius,
1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological ‘Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price three shillings

i i
el
Issued 21st June, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.). ‘
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr: Norman R. SPOLL (U.S.A):

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). -

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, $.W. 7. |

Publications Office of the Commission :
4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 163.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR EUPLOEA FABRICIUS,
1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio corus
Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as the type of Euploea Fabri-
cius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera). The name Euploea
Fabricius, with the type indicated above, is hereby added to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 611.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 24th October 1934, in
which Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley,
Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum
(Natural History), jointly invited the Commission to render
Opinions in regard to this, and certain other, generic names in the
Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). The passage in that letter
relating to the name Ewploea Fabricius reads as follows :—

We recommend that the following names should be added by the
International Commission to the Official List of Generic Names. Our
reasons for so recommending are fully set out in the statements, the terms

of which we have jointly agreed, contained in Hemming’s Generic Names of
the Holarctic Butterflies on the pages noted below :—

Euploea Fab., 1807 (Hemming, Joc. cit. 1 : 23-25)

oe © © @ ©

2. The following is an extract, from the work referred to above,
of the passage relating to this genus :—

EUPLOEA Fabricius

Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280

Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66

Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10: 172
Butler, 1878, J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 14: 291

Moore, 1883, Pvoc. zool. Soc. London 1888 : 288

Hampson, 1918, Novit. Zool., Tring 25 : 385

TYPE: Papilio corus Fab., 1793

Fabricius said that there were thirty-two species in this genus and men-
tioned three by name, viz. plexippus Linn., similis Linn. and corus Fab.
Crotch’s selection of ewnice God. as the type is invalid, as that is not one of

338 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the Fabrician species. The type was validly fixed by Scudder as similis
Linn. In 1878 Butler selected as the type cove Cram., 1780, but quite
apart from Scudder’s earlier selection of similis Linn., this selection by
Butler would have been invalid, as cove Cram. is not one of the three species
originally given by Fabricius, though Butler thought that it was, as he
wrongly considered that covus Fab. (one of the original species) was a
synonym of cove Cram. In 1883, Moore rectified this misidentification and
selected covus Fab. as the type. This selection falls to the ground, as does
that by Hampson in 1918 of plexippus Linn., in view of Scudder’s earlier
selection of samilis Linn.

Thus, under a strict interpretation of the International Code, the name
Euploea Fab., though nomenclatorially valid, is not required, as it is a
synonym of Danaus Kluk, 1802, the types of the two genera (similis Linn.
and plexippus Linn.) being congeneric. The species hitherto referred to
Euploea Fab. would require to be transferred to Tvepsichvois Hiibn. It is
difficult to imagine a more unsatisfactory result or one less acceptable to
lepidopterists generally. The genus Euploea Fab., as usually understood
(i.e. the generic name of corus Fab. and its allies) is one of the largest and
best known of all the genera of Rhopalocera. The immense majority of
the species concerned, some 150 in number, was originally described as
belonging to the genus Euploea Fab., and an enormous literature has grown
up around this name. To upset all this for the sake of maintaining the
fixation, as type, of similis Linn. by Scudder in 1875, in preference to the
selection of corus Fab. by Moore in 1883, would, in my view, serve no useful
purpose whatever, I should, indeed, regard it as a definitely retrograde
step.

The position is, therefore, that a strict application of the International
Code would :—

(a) sink Euploea Fab. as a synonym of Damaus Kluk, a genus with
which the name has hardly ever been associated, although in 1875
Scudder unfortunately selected a Danaine (Papilio similis Linn.,
1758) as its type; and :

(b) deprive Papilio corus Fab., 1793, and its very numerous congeners
of the generic name Euploea Fab., by which they have almost
universally been known since its establishment by Fabricius in 1807
and under which the great majority were first described.

I am of the opinion :—

(i) that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the universally accepted
use of the name Euploea Fab., 1807, for Papilio corus Fab., 1793,
and its congeners, by transferring them to the genus Tvepsichrois
Hiibn., 1816; and

(ii) that the strict application of the rules of the International Code in
this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.

3. In the work from which the foregoing is an extract, Com-
missioner Hemming went on to say that, jointly with Mr. N. D.
Riley, he was submitting to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation that, in the exercise
of the plenary power conferred upon them by the International
Zoological Congress, the Commission should as soon as possible
take the steps laid down by the Congress for the promulgation of
an Opinion to the following effect :—

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 339

The name Euploea Fab., 1807, is hereby added to the Official List of
Generic Names. In view of the sense in which this name has been almost
universally used ever since its publication by Fabricius, the type of Euploea
Fab. shall be deemed to be Papilio corus Fab., 1793, which was specified as
such by Moore in 1883 (Proc. zool. Soc. London 1888 : 288), notwithstanding
the earlier selection of Papilio similis Linn., 1758, by Scudder in 1875
(Proc. Amer. Acad. Avis Sci., Boston 10 : 172).

4. Commissioner Hemming added that he was so impressed with
the importance of this matter that he had thought it desirable in
the work from which the above passages have been extracted to
anticipate what he hoped would be the decision of the Interna-
tional Commission. He therefore treated Papilio corus Fabricius,

1793, as the type of Euploea Fabricius, 1807.

iE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

5. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Inter-
national Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on
the present application. This case was accordingly considered
by the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Com-
mittee agreed to recommend that the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature should take such action under their
plenary powers as might be necessary to secure that the type of
Euploea Fabricius, 1807, should be Papilio corus Fabricius, 1793.

6. This, and other, recommendations adopted by the Interna-
tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid
meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of
Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held on 12th September

1935-

Ill.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

340 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate con-
sideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the
Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to
such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in
question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable
after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion
should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of
a period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement
was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The
case of the name Euploea Fabricius, 1807, was one of the cases in
question and was accordingly dealt wi by the COTM buyers
the above procedure.

8. This case was considered by the International Commission
later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22 1), when it was agreed :—

(a) to “ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :—
(i) Euploea Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 280

(b) to declare that the type of Euploea Fabricius, 1807, is Papilio corus
Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 3 (1) : 41;

(i) to add the generic names Euploea Fabricius, 1807, ... to the Official
List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above;

(1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (1) above.

g. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of the
report ? which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday,
18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the

1 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool.

Nomencl. 1 : 20-23.
2 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 60-61.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 341

Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

10. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 7
above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.? In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the possible suspension of the rules in the
present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed
to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opinion in the terms proposed.

11. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera: Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

12. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner Who was neither present on that
occasion or represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. :

13. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; ieaciian - Silvestri ; and Stiles.

3 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

342 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

14. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held in Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution con-
ferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary
power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case, where,
in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the
rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, pro-
vided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension
of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or
more of five journals named in the said Resolution, and provided
that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the
proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and 3

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals referred to in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held in Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Seasen
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE, ue

I, Francis HemminG, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International -Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opimion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty Three (Opinion 3) of the said
Commission.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 343

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANcISs HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this tenth day of June, Nineteen Hundred and
Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the
archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature. |

Secretary to the International Commission .
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

344 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts -
were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and
6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the ~
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with -
Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the-volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Ofinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission
since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing
Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 163. 345

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

_ The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to
31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 34. Pp. 347-358.

OPINION 164

On the principles to be observed in interpreting

Article 30 of the International Code in relation

to the types of genera when two or more genera
are united on taxonomic grounds

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945

Price three shillings

Issued 21st June, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 164.

ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING
ARTICLE 30 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION
TO THE TYPES OF GENERA WHEN TWO OR MORE GENERA
ARE UNITED ON TAXONOMIC GROUNDS.

SUMMARY.—tThe following principles are to be observed in
interpreting Article 30 of the International Code in relation to the
types of genera when two or more genera are united on taxonomic
grounds :—(1) When two or more genera are united on taxonomie
grounds, such action in no way affects the types of the genera
concerned ; (2) the broader genus thus formed takes as its name
the oldest available name based on any ineluded species; (3)
the genus bearing that name retains as its type the species pre-
viously so established.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

on 27 February 1934, Dr. Thomas Mortensen (Universitetets

Zoclogiske Museum, Copenhagen) addressed a communication to
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature asking
for an Opinion regarding the type of the genus Tvomikosoma
Mortensen, 1903 (Dan. Ingolf-Exped. 4:62, 64) (Class Echinoidea).
In his covering letter Dr. Mortensen wrote :—
. By the present I beg to submit to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature a little matter which I do not find covered by
any of the rules or Opinions. It is not of great importance, but I think
that it would be worth while to have it made the object of an Opinion, which
would cover similar cases in the future.

2. The portion of Dr. Mortensen’s petition relating to the type
of Tvomikosoma Mortensen has since been dealt with by the
Commission in Opinion 131, where the text of his petition is given
in full. As the present Ofinion is concerned only with the general
principle involved in that petition, only those parts of Dr. Morten-
sen’s petition that relate to that principle are sug on this
occasion. The extracts in question are the following : —-

Pomel in his paper ‘* Classification méthodique et Genera des Echinides

vivants et fossiles,”’ 1883, p. 108, established a genus Echinosoma, naming
the species Phorymosoma uranus A. Agassiz and Phormosoma tenuis A.

350 . OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Agassiz as belonging to that genus, without designating any of them as the
genotype.

In my work Echinoidea I. The Danish Ingolf Expedition. Vol. TN irate
1903. p. 62, I adopted the said genus of Pomel, referring to it the same two
species as did Pomel, but no genotype was designated. In the same work I
established the genus Tvomikosoma, with the single species Tvomikosoma
koehlert n.sp.,, which is accordingly the genotype of that genus.

A. Agassiz and H. L. Clark, in their work “‘ Hawaiian and other Pacific
Echini”’ . . . designate Phormosoma tenue A. Agassiz as the genotype of
Echinosoma, which is made to include also my genus Tvomikosoma—which
I agree to be correct.

The name Echinosoma, however, was preoccupied, no less than three
times cs Accordingly, it cannot be used for the Echinoids, and the
name Tvomikosoma must take its place.

3. The particular question submitted by Dr. Mortensen was
therefore whether Phormosoma tenue Agassiz (the type of the
nomenclatorially unavailable Echinosoma Pomel) or Tromikosoma
koehlert Mortensen (the type of Tvomtkosoma Mortensen) should
be regarded as the type of the genus Tvomikosoma Mortensen now
that on taxonomic grounds the genus with the earlier but nomen-
clatorially unavailable name Echinosoma Pomel was united
therewith. The question of principle involved in Dr. Mortensen’s
petition concerned the identity of a genus comprising two or more -
genera united with one another on taxonomic grounds. Was the
type of the combined genus the species designated as the type of the
genus so united which possessed the oldest available generic name
or was it the species designated as the type of the genus so united
which possessed the oldest name even if that name was unavailable

nomenclatorially ?

Il—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THIS’ CASE:

4. Dr. Mortensen’s petition was communicated to the members
of the Commission in April 1934 with a request for their views.
In his covering note, Dr. Stiles expressed his own view of the
matter as follows :—

The Secretary sees no difficulty whatever in this case, namely koehlert is
the type species of Tvomikosoma, and this point is not influenced by any
restriction or by any broadening of the generic concept.

5. In February 1935 Dr. Stiles furnished to the Commission a
summary of the replies received to this inquiry :—

(a) Eight Commissioners (Apstein, Chapman, Fantham,! Jordan, Peters,
Silvestri, Stiles, and Stone) had expressed themselves as of the view

1 Through some oversight, Dr. Stiles omitted Dr. Fantham’s name from
this list and included that of Dr. Bather, who had died (on zoth March
1934) prior to the issue of the questionnaire.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 164. 351

that Tvomikosoma koehlert remained the type of Tvomikosoma
Mortensen, 1903, after the incorporation in that genus of the genus
possessing the (older but nomenclatorially unavailable) name
Echinosoma Pomel, 1883.

(b) One Commissioner (Pellegrin) had taken the opposite view but had

given no reasons for so doing.-

6. At.some date subsequent to the preparation of the report
summarised above, Commissioner Ishikawa also replied that he
considered that, in the circumstances set out in the premises, the
type of Tvomikosoma Mortensen became Phormosoma tenue
Agassiz, but he added a note in which he explained that he took
this view because “ the older name‘has the right of priority in the
present case where the names koehler1 and tenue are used for one
and the same species.’’ In giving this vote, Commissioner
Ishikawa expressed, therefore, no opinion on the question of
principle raised by Dr. Mortensen.

7. In the light of this preliminary exchange of views, Dr. Stiles
invited the Commission to give a formal vote on a draft Opinion,
the “summary ’’ of which was confined to the statement that
“ The type of Tvomikosoma Mortensen, 1903, is koehlert.’”’ In the
following month (March 1935) Dr. Stiles included the case raised
by Dr. Mortensen among those which he suggested should be
considered by the International Commission when it met at
Lisbon later that year.

IIl1—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
| TIONAL COMMISSION.

8. The case submitted by Dr. Mortensen was considered by the
International Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on
Tuesday, 17th September 1935. On the general question involved,
the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion
8) 2 :—

(a) that, when two or more genera are united on taxonomic grounds, such

action in no way affects the types of the genera concerned; that
the broader genus thus formed takes as its name the oldest available

name based on any includéd species; and that the genus bearing that
name retains as its type the species previously so established ;

2 Only those portions of Conclusion 8 which relate to the question dealt
with in the present Opinion are here quoted. The remaining portion deals
with the type of Pvomikosoma Mortensen, for which see Opinion 131. For
the full text of Conclusion 8, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 35-36.

352 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

-g. Later-in the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis
Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W.
Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the
duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that,
in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the
previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)),
he had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report ;
that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered
by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not
doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before
the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available
it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs
relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached
during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon
at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3(a) (i11)), he was therefore concentrating upon those
matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner
Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found im-
possible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the
time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the basis
of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the Com-
mission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Com-
missioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously
agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the
same way, whether or not it was found possible to include refer-
ences to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress, and
therefore that every such decision should be treated as having been
participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at
Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved, the state-
ment by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals
submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selec-
tion of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted
after the Congress in regard to those matters with which, for the
reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal in the report.

10. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available,
to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It
is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the

COMMISSION ON’ ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.. OPINION I64. 353

procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph
9 above.

11. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;

3 Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
_ Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

12. The present Ofinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Session.

13. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

14. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—THE AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
‘Members of the said Commission have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Ofinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and .

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary
thereof, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the
rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by
the Commission; and

354 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FrRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty Four (Ofinion 164) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twelfth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 164. 355

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts
were published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and
6 are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opzmions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1~20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Ofinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-35, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-165,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume.3. This volume, which commenced with’ Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-5 (containing
Opinions 182-186) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

356 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
clature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £819 8s. 7d. were received up to
31st December 1944. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.
~ Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at —
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘“ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

-RINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY ER
cHARD CLAY AND Company, Lrp

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 35. Pp. 359-374.

OPINION 165

Need for the suspension of the rules for Strymon
Htibner, 1818 (Class Insecta, Order Lepido-
ptera) not established

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1945

Price four shillings

Issued 21st June, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission)
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIWN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

Ves Ss. Ar \
1403 1945 j

er iy e.

OPINION 165.

NEED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR
STRYMON HUBNER, 1818 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
LEPIDOPTERA) NOT ESTABLISHED.

SUMMARY.—The need for the suspension of the rules for
Strymon Hiibner, 1818 (type : Strymon melinus Hubner, 1818)
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) is not established.

Le, Stat PMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 23rd February 1934,
in which the Council of the Royal Entomological Society of
London drew attention to the conclusions reached by the Lepido-
ptera Sub-Committee + of the Society’s Committee on Generic
Nomenclature,? regarding the generic names of certain of the
British Lepidoptera, in regard to which both the Lepidoptera
Sub-Committee and the Committee on Generic Nomenclature
were of the opinion that the strict application of the rules would
clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity. The Society
enclosed a copy of the Report of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee
(published that day as Part 2 of the Generic Names of British
Insects) to which was attached a paper by Commissioner Francis
Hemming, in which was given a full statement in regard to each
of the names in question. One of these names was Strymon
Hiibner, 1818 (Zutr. z. Samm. exot. Schmett. 1 3 22).

2. The following is an extract from the paper referred to above
of the passage relating to this genus :—

STRYMON Hiibner

Hibner, 1818, Zutvdge z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 22
Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 472

Type (fixed by Riley) = Sirymon melinus Hiibn., 1818

On a strict application of the rules in the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature the name Bithys Hiibn., 1818, should take precedence of
Sitvymon Hiibn. Nomenclatorially both Stvymon Hiibn. and Bithys Hiibn.

1 This Sub-Committee was then composed as follows :—Mr. Francis
Hemming (Chairman), Mr. N. D. Riley, and Mr. W. H. T. Tams.

362 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

are valid names, but one must sink as a synonym of the other, as their
respective types (Stvymon melinus Hiibn. and Bithys leucophaeus Hiibn.) are
congeneric * or at least must be regarded as being so, until the very large
group of species at present assigned to Stvymon Hibn. is next revised. Both
names were published simultaneously by Hiibner in the same work (vol.
1 of his Zutrage z. Samml. exot. Schmett.). The name Bithys Hiibn. was
published on page 18 and the name Stvymon Hiibn. on page 22. Thus on
the principle of page priority, Stvyymon Hubn. should (at any rate for the
present) fall to Bithys Hiibn.

There are, however, very strong reasons against such an arrangement.
The name Stvymon Hiibn. has been applied without challenge to melinus
Hiibn. and its numerous allies for many years. These species have, in fact,
been so called both by European and American systematists ever since it
was realised that they could not be called (as they were in earlier days) by
the name Thecla Fab. On the other hand, the name Bithys Hiibn. has
been very little used at any time, and when it has been used, it has usually
been employed for species of the other large group of “‘ hairstreaks ”’
(Papilio quercus Linn., 1758, etc.) which properly belong to the genus
Thecla Fab.

3. The paper from which the foregoing passage is an extract
concluded with the hope that the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee
would join in reporting to the Committee on Generic Nomenclature
of the Royal Entomological Society of London that it was highly
desirable that in the exercise of the plenary powers conferred upon
them by the International Zoological Congress, the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should as soon as
possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the pro-
mulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :—

The name Sivymon Hibn., 1818 (type Stvymon melinus Hiibn., 1818) is
hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name Bithys Hiibn.,
1818, is, therefore, not to be substituted for Sitvymon Hibn., 1818, on the
ground that it has page priority over that name, though it is available for
use for Bithys leucophaeus Hibn., 1818, by such systematists as may regard
that species as generically distinct from Sivymon melinus Hibn.

4. The foregoing conclusions were concurred in by the Lepido-
ptera Sub-Committee, by whom they were submitted to the
Committee on Generic Nomenclature. The latter body endorsed
the view of the Sub-Committee and recommended the Council of
the Society to approach the International Commission in the
sense indicated. It was in accordance with this recommendation
that the Council addressed to the Commission the letter referred
to in paragraph I above.

IIl.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

5. Before the International Commission had time to take any
action on this case, they received a letter on the same subject

* For a supplementary note on this question, see paragraph 7 below.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 363

(dated 17th May 1934) from Dr. J. McDunnough, Chief of the
Division of Systematic Entomology, Entomological Branch,
Department of Agriculture, Ottawa, from which the following is
alexiiact ;——

I am enclosing signed copies of a short note which is appearing in the
current number of the “ Canadian Entomologist.’? You will see by this
that the large majority of active systematic Lepidopterists advocate the
fixing of certain genotypes for the four genera mentioned in the note and I
am sure also that the large proportion of continental entomologists are in
favour of such procedure.

The following is an extract from the note referred to above :—

ON THE STABILIZING OF FOUR GENERIC NAMES»
(Lepid. Rhopalocera)

To students of the involved generic nomenclature of the Palaearctic and
Nearctic Diurnal Lepidoptera, the recent publication of the ‘‘ Generic
Names of British Rhopalocera ’’ will prove of great interest. This pam-
phlet has been prepared by Mr. Francis Hemming at the request of the
Royal Entomological Society of London, and includes full details regarding
type fixation and synonymy. Appended to the list is the first report of
the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee to the main committee, and following Mr.
Hemming’s suggestions, the suspension of the Law of Priority in four cases
is advocated by this sub-committee, the ground being that strict applica-
tion. of the rules would cause serious, and quite unnecessary, disturbance
in existing practice.

The genera involved, with their Sa a genotypes, are as follows :—

; Stvymon Hbn. (S. melinus Hbn.); .

" “Welcoming any action that would assist in stabilizing generic nomen-
clature, the undersigned lepidopterists express their fullagreement with the
recommendations of the above sub-committee and would urge the adoption
of this report.

J. McDunnough, Entom. Br., Dept. of Agriculture, Ottawa, Canada.
May 15, 1934.

Jessie D. Gunder, 310 Linda Vista Ave., Pasadena, Calif. Apr. 13, 1934.

John A. Comstock, Los Angeles Museum, Exposition Park, Los Angeles,
Calif.) Apr 20, 1934:

Wm. T. M. Forbes, Dept. of Entomology, Cornell U., Ithaca, N.Y. April 17,

1934.
Roswell C. Williams, Jr., Acad. Nat. Sciences, r9th & Race Sts., Phila-
Gekpiia, a. Apr 17, 1934.
E. Irving Huntington, 115 East 90th St., New York, N.Y. April 21, 1934.
Cyril F. dos Passos, Washington Corners, Mendham, N.J. Apr. 23, 1934.
Frank E. Watson, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City. Apr. 23, 1934.
Gy” Curran, Amer. Mus. Nat. Hist. N.Y. City... Apr. 23, 1934.
Ernest Bell, 150-17 Roosevelt Ave., Flushing, N.Y. Apr. 24, 1934.
Alyach B. Klots, College of the City of New York, Dept. of Biology. Apr.

24, 1934.

6. As a first step the International Commission decided to invite
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature
to report on the present application. This case was accordingly
considered by the International Committee at their meeting held
at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth

364 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

International Congress of Entomology. During the preliminary
discussion of this case, it was apparent that the International
Committee were in sympathy with the objects sought by the
petitioners in this case. At the same time attention was drawn
to the statement in the petition that the genus Stvymon Hiibner,
1818, was overdue for revision. That genus as at that time
understood would certainly be divided into a number of genera
and there was therefore no longer any ground for fearing that on
a strict application of the rules it would be necessary to substitute
the name Bithys Hiibner, 1818, for Stvymon Hiibner as the generic
name for the very large assemblage of species at present assigned
to the last-named genus. In these circumstances, was there any
need to ask the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to render an Ofinion in the terms proposed in the petition ?
Commissioner Francis Hemming, who was present at this dis-
cussion as a member of the International Committee, indicated
that for the reasons that had been advanced he no longer desired
to press his original proposal, and at the request of the Committee
he undertook to prepare.a supplementary note setting out the
grounds on which he had reached this conclusion.

7. The following is the text of the supplementary note on this
case prepared by Commissioner Hemming during the Madrid
meeting for the consideration of the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature :—

THE CASE OF THE NAMES BITHYS HUBNER, 1818, AND
STRYMON HUBNER, 1818 (Lepidoptera LYCAENIDAE)

Supplementary statement prepared by Commissioner Francis Hemming for
submission to the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature at they meeting held at Madrid in September 1935

(1) In accordance with the request of the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature I submit herewith for their considera-
tion the following note on the names Bbithys Hiibner, 1818, and
Stvymon Hiibner, 1818 (Order Lepidoptera, Family LYCAENIDAE).
This note is in continuation of the petition submitted in 1934 and
the proposals now submitted are in substitution for those submitted
on that occasion.

(2) The relevant considerations in this case are the following :—

(a) The names Bithys Hiibner, 1818 (type: Buthys leucophaeus
Hiibner, 1818) and Stvymon Hibner, 1818 (type: Sitvymon
melinus Hibner, 1818) were published by Hibner in 1818 in the
same work (vol. 1 of the Zutr. z. Sammi. exot. Schmett.).

(b) The name Bithys Hibner was published on page 18 and the name
Sivymon on page 22.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 365

(3)

(4)

(5)

(6)

(8)

(9)

(d) The types of these two genera are today commonly regarded as
being congeneric both with one another and with the Palaearctic
species of this group represented in the British fauna (i.e. Papilio
pruni Linnaeus, 1758, and Papilio w-album Knoch, 1782).

For the reasons explained in the petition submitted in 1934, there
would be very strong objections to the substitution of the name
Bithys Hiibner for Stvyymon Hibner as the generic name for the very
large number of species at present assigned to the genus Stvymon
Hiibner. If no other way of avoiding such a substitution were
available, it would certainly be highly desirable that the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should make use of their
plenary powers to secure that end.

The genus Stvymon Hiibner, as at present understood, contains many
highly diverse species an iti
is overdue for generic revision.

There is no doubt that as the result of any such revision it would be
necessary to separate generically the large group of Neotropical
species from those found in the Nearctic and Palaearctic Regions and
it is likely that it would be necessary in turn to separate the Palae-
arctic species from the Nearctic species or at least from most of them.
It follows therefore that, when the genus Sivymon Hibner is revised,
it will be found :—

(i) that in view of the fact that its type (Bithys leucophaeus Hiibner)
is confined to the Neotropical Region, the name Bithys Hiibner
(as the oldest nomenclatorially available name) will become the
name of a Neotropical genus of LYCAENIDAE and as such will
cease to be of direct concern to students of the species of this
family occurring in the Nearctic and Palaearctic Regions ;

(ii) that in view of the fact that its type is Stvymon melinus Hiibner,
the name Stvymon Hubner will become the oldest nomenclatorially
available name for some at least of the Nearctic species involved ;

and it is likely that it will be found :—

(iii) that the Palaearctic species are not congeneric with Stvymon
melinus Hibner and therefore that the name Stvymon Hiibner
will cease to be of direct concern to students of the Palaearctic
species of this group.

In these circumstances the meaning to be attached to the name
Bithys Hibner has no longer any bearing on the nomenclature of the
Palaearctic species at present assigned to the genus Stvymon Hibner.
From this point of view, therefore, the grounds on which the petition
submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature in 1934 was based have lost their force.

Accordingly, I no longer consider that from the foregoing point of
view it is necessary that the International Commission should render
an Opinion in order to ensure that the name Bithys Hubner is not
substituted for the name Stvymon Hiibner.

There remains the question whether in view of past usage the
employment of the name Bithys Hiibner as the generic name for a
group of Neotropical LyCAENIDAE would be likely to result in
greater confusion than uniformity. Personally, I should expect this
to be the result of sucha transfer. I agree however that this question
can conveniently be deferred for consideration until it is possible to
judge the size and importance of the genus Bithys Hiibner when that
name is applied in the sense required by the rules. I hope, however,
that, if the International Commission decide to take no action on
the petition of 1934, they will at the same time make it clear that the

366 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

door is left open for the submission of a revised petition in regard to
the name bithys Hibner when the position of that genus is more
clearly understood.

(10) I have discussed this problem with Mr. Riley 4 and other lepido-
pterists now present in Madrid and with Professor James Chester
Bradley who 1s in possession of the views on this subject of representa-
tive lepidopterists in the United States. All whom I have consulted
are in agreement with the conclusions set out above.

8. On further consideration of this case, the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed to recommend
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
render an Ofimion declaring that the need for the suspension of
the rules for Stvymon Hubner had not been established, but that
it was desirable that the way should be left open for further con-
sideration of the case of Bithys Hiibner at a later date when fuller
particulars were available. This and other recommendations
adopted by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature at their Madrid meeting were confirmed by the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium
Plenum held on 12th September 1935.

III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

g. This case was considered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held on the morning
of Monday, 16th September 1935. In view of the recommendation
submitted by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22) > :—

(j) that the need for the suspension of the rules for Stvymon Hubner,
1818, Zutr. z. Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : 22, had not been established ;

(l) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above.

10. No reference was made in the foregoing Conclusion to the
name Bithys Hiibner, 1818, since, in the view of the Commission,
the question of that name as such was not then before them.

4 For a supplementary note on the issues raised by this case, prepared
jointly by Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley, see the
peed to the present Opinion (pp. 370-373 below).

5 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are
here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. Zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 20-23.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 367

iz. At the meeting of the Commission held on Tuesday, 17th
September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17),
Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through
ill-health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had
been charged with the duty of preparing the report to be sub-
mitted by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made
by the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd
Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting
of the Commission’s report; that he had made considerable
progress in spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works
of reference; and that he did not doubt that he would be in a
position to lay a draft report before the Commission at their next
meeting, though in the time available it would be quite impractic-
able to prepare the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters
on which decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session
of the Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to
above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(it1)), he was
therefore concentrating upon those matters that appeared to be
the more important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that
those matters which it was found impossible to include in the
report, owing to the shortness of the time available, should be
dealt with after the Congress on the basis of the records in the
Oficial Record of the Proceedings of the Commission during their
Lisbon Session. For this purpose, Commissioner Hemming
_ proposed that all matters unanimously agreed upon during the
Lisbon Session should be treated in the same manner, whether
or not it was found possible to include references to them in the
report to be submitted to the Congress, and therefore that every
such decision should be treated as having been participated in
by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at Lisbon. The
Commission took note of, and approved, the statement by
_ Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the proposals submitted by
him, as recorded above, in regard both to the selection of items
to be included in their report to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology and to the procedure to be adopted after the Congress
in regard to those matters with which, for the reasons explained,
it was found impossible to deal in the report.

12. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time avail-
able, to include a reference in the report submitted by the Com-
mission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon.

368 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

It is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under
the procedure agreed upon by the International Commission as
set out in paragraph 11 above.

13. [The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier wee Mandlirsch india cere
Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

14. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session.

15. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

16. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission; and’

WHEREAS the present Ofinion as set out in the summary
thereof neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of
the rules, nor involves a reversal of any former Opimion rendered
by the Commission, and

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 369

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty Five (Opinion 165) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Downe in London, this twentieth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. :

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

370 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

APPENDIX TO OPINION 165

The status of generic names first published by Jacob Hubner in
his Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge [sic], with special
reference to the names Strymon Hubner, Bithys Hubner and
Chrysophanus Hubner (Order Lepidoptera, Family LYCAENIDAE),

By Francis HemmMine, C.M.G., C.B.E.
(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature)
and

INS SDA Rae Ey
(Keeper of the Depariment of Entomology, British Museum (Natural History).)

In 1934, we drew up, jointly with our colleague Mr. W. H. T. Tams, a
recommendation on behalf of the Lepidoptera Sub-Committee of the
Committee on Generic Nomenclature of the Royal Entomological Society
of London that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
should be asked to use their plenary powers to secure that the name Bithys
Hubner should not be substituted by reason of page priority for the name
Sivymon Hiibner as the name for the very large assemblage of species of the
family LYCAENIDAE (Order Lepidoptera) usually placed in that genus. We
made this recommendation because the name biihys Hubner, when pre-
viously used, had almost invariably been used for the allied but entirely
distinct group of species belonging to the same tribe (THECLINI), represented
by Papilio betulae Linnaeus, 1758, the type of Thecla Fabricius, 1807.
The transfer of a generic name from one well-established group of species
to another equally well-established group within a single tribe of a family
would undoubtedly give rise to greater confusion than uniformity and for
this reason would be open to strong objection. In this connection, it will
be recalled that the avoidance of confusing transfers of this kind was
expressly stated by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology to be one
of the purposes for which at their meeting held at Monaco in 1913 they
decided to confer upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the
rules as applied to that case would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity (see Declaration 5, published in 1943, Opinions and Declarations
vendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-
40). Accordingly, we considered that the case of the names Sivymon
Hubner and Bithys Hubner was one for which the use by the International
Commission of their plenary powers would be peculiarly appropriate.

The recent re-publication by the International Commission of Opinion
I (1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86) has drawn renewed attention to the
definition given in that Opinion of the expression “‘ indication ’”’ as used in
proviso (a) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. From this Opinion
it is clear that a generic name can only be accepted as having been published
with an “‘ indication,”’ if at the time of its publication it was accompanied
(1) with a bibliographic reference to a previously published description or
definition or (2) with a definite citation of an earlier name for which a new
name is proposed (applicable to nomina nova only) or (3) with a “ definite
citation or designation of a type species.’’ The same Opinion makes it

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. 371

clear also that the last-quoted phrase covers the case where a generic name
is published without description or definition but with only one included
species cited by name, that species being, therefore, the type by monotypy
(see rule (c) in Article 30 as interpreted by Opinion 47).

The generic names Stvymon and Bithys were first published by Hiibner
in 1818 in volume 1 of his Zutrage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmettlinge
[sic]. That work consists essentially of a series of plates illustrating new or
little-known species and the text, which is very short, is confined to a brief
description of the species figured. In most cases, the species in question
are assigned in the text to new genera, the plates themselves bearing no
legends apart from the number allotted to each figure for the purpose of
linking it with the text. No description or definition of any kind is given
for the new genera published in this work. The description given is
entirely confined to the species illustrated. If, as was formerly thought to
be the case, these genera had been monotypical, the generic names in
question would have been available nomenclatorially, since they would
have been published with an “ indication ’’ within the meaning of that
expression as defined in Opinion 1. Unfortunately, a close study of the
Zutvage has shown that, in addition to describing the species figured,
Hiibner in each case cited for comparative purposes the name of a second
species, thereby making each of these genera a genus containing two
originally included species instead of a monotypical genus as previously
supposed. The result is that the generic names first published in Hiibner’s
Zutvage zur Sammlung exotischer Schmetilinge [sic] do not satisfy the
requirements of proviso (a) to Article 25 of the frégles Internationales,
since those names were published not only without a description or a
definition but also without an “‘indication.’’ Contrary, therefore, to what
we believed when we prepared our application to the International Com-
mission in regard to the names Stvymon Hiibner and Bithys Hiibner, those
names were not published in volume 1 of Hibner’s Zuivage in conditions
which satisfy the Régles Internationales. They are, therefore, not available
as from their publication in that work.

The next occasion on which the names Sitvymon and Bithys were pub-
lished was by Hubner in 1819 ® in his Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge
[sic]. In that work Hubner gave a definition for each of, the genera there
adopted. The names Stvymon and Bithys are, therefore, available as from
the date of their publication in the Verzeichniss. The only species available
for selection by subsequent authors as the types of these genera are the
species included in those genera in the Verzeichniss. In the case both of
Stvymon Hibner and Bithys Hibner (and also of Chrysophanus Hubner,
which, though not referred to in our original application to the Commission,
is nevertheless bound up with the case of Stvymon Hiibner), the species
included in those genera by Hiibner in the Verzezchniss and first selected
as the types of those genera by authors acting under rule (g) in Article
_ 30 are not the species which would have been the types if the earlier publica-
tion in the Zutrvdge of the generic names in question had complied with the
Régles Internationales and had therefore conferred availability upon those
names as from that work. Inthecase of each of these genera it is, therefore,
necessary to accept as the type a species other than that which was so
accepted at the time when in 1934 we submitted this case to the Inter-
national Commission.

We have, accordingly, re-examined the position as regards each of the
generic names in question, in order to determine whether the change in the

6 The dates adopted in the present paper for the publication of the various signatures in
which Htibner’s Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] are those worked out by Hemming
in the light of the surviving Hiibner manuscripts (see paragraph 8 of Opinion 150, pub-
lished in 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature 2; 165-166).

372 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

type species of these genera introduces any new factors into this case and,
in particular, to ascertain whether in the new situation so created there is
still a risk that, when the genus Sivymon Hiibner is next revised, the name
Bithys Hiibner may need to be applied to a species of the Strymonid group,
with the consequent likelihood of confusion, unless action is taken by the
International Commission under their plenary powers to prevent this from
happening. The result of our re-examination of the position as regards
these names is given below :—

Chrysophanus Hubner, [1819]

Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 72

[Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmetit. 1: 24 no. 68 pl. [24] figs. 135, 136 (invalid
because published without an “‘ indication ’’)]

Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 56

Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 467

TYPE: Papilio hyllus Cramer, [1775], Uitl. Kapellen 1 (4) : 67 pl. 43, figs. B, C.

The first author to select as the type of this genus one of the species included in it in the
Verzeichniss was Scudder (1872), who selected Papilio hyllus Cramer, [1775]. Thatspecies
is, therefore, the type and not Rusticus mopsus Hubner, [1809-1813], Erste Zutr.: 6 (ref.
figs. 135, 136 on pl. [24] in volume 1 of the Zur. z. Samml. exot. Schmett.), which would
have been the type of this genus if the name Chrysophanus Hubner had first been validly
published in volume 1 of the Zutr. z. Sammi. exot. Schmett. (Riley, 1922).

So long as it was thought that Rusticus mopsus Hubner was the type of this genus, there
was a prospect of great confusion arising if, upon the next revision of the genus Sivymon
Hiibner (of which Rusticus melinus Hubner, [1809-1813], was then thought to be the
type), the species Rusticus mopsus Hiibner had been separated generically from Rusticus
melinus Hubner, for this would have meant that the name Chrysophanus Hiibner would
have been transferred from the group of ‘‘ Coppers ’’ belonging to the group represented
by Lycaena Fabricius, 1807 (type: Papilio phlaeas Linnaeus, 1761) to the Strymonid
group of ‘‘ Hairstreaks.’’ This risk entirely disappears now that it is seen that the type
of Chrysophanus Hiibner is Papilio hyllus Cramer, for that species, if not actually con-
generic with Papilio phlaeas Linnaeus, is closely allied thereto. The correct use of the
name Chrysophanus Hubner is, therefore, also the accustomed use.

Strymon Hiibner, [1819]

Hibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmeit. (5) : 74

[Huibner, 1818, Zutr. 2. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: 22 no. 61 pl. [21] figs. 121, 122 (invalid
because published without an “‘ indication ’’)]

Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 53

Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 472

TYPE: Rusticus mopsus Hibner, [1809-1813], Erste Zutr. : 6 (reference to figs. 121, 122
on pl. [24] in volume 1 of the Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmeitt.)

The first author to select as the type of this genus one of the species included in it in the
Verzeichniss was Scudder (1872), who selected Rusticus mopsus Hiibner, [1809-1813].
That species is, therefore, the type and not Rusticus melinus Hiibner, [1809-1813], which
would have been the type of this genus if the name Stvymon Hubner had first been validly
published in volume 1 of the Zutr. 2. Samml. exot. Schmett.

The substitution of Rusticus mopsus Hiibner for Rusticus melinus Hubner as the type
of Stvymon Hiibner has, in existing circumstances, no practical effect whatever, since these
two species are commonly regarded as being congeneric. Further, there is no prospect
of confusion arising even if, on the next revision of the genus Sivymon Hiibner, it is found
advisable to place these two species in different genera, since Rusticus melinus Hiibner
will certainly remain in the Strymonid group of genera.

As will be seen from the immediately following note, the generic name Bithys Hiibner
was published in the Verzeichniss on a later page than Strymon Hiibner. Accordingly,
there is no longer any risk of confusion arising through the substitution on grounds of
page priority of the name Bithys Hibner for the name Sivymon Hubner.

Bithys Hubner, [1819]

Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 75

[Hiibner, 1818, Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: 18 no. 44 pl. [16] figs. 87, 88 (invalid
because published without an “‘ indication ’’)]

Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sct., Boston 10 : 127

Riley, 1922, J. Bombay nat. Hist. Soc. 28 : 466

TYPE: Papilio strephon Fabricius, 1775, Syst. ent. : 522

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 165. SHS

The first author to select as the type of this genus one of the species included in it in
the Verzeichniss was Scudder (1875), who selected Papilio strephon Fabricius, 1775.
That species is, therefore, the type and not Rusticus leucophaeus Hubner, [1809— 1813],
Erste Zutr. : 5 (ref, figs. 87, 88 on pl. [16]in volume I of the Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett. Ms
which. would have been the type of this genus if the name Bithys Htibner had first been
validly published in volume 1 of the Zutr. 2. Samml. exot. Schmett. (Riley, 1922).

The substitution of Papilio strephon Fabricius for Rusticus leucophaeus Hiibner as the
type of Bithys Hiibner has no immediate effect, since at present both species are commonly
referred to the genus Sitvymon Hubner, of which, therefore, Bithys Hubner is now sunk
asasynonym. Whennext the genus Stvymon Hiibner comes to be revised, it may certainly
be expected that Papilio strephon Fabricius will be separated generically from Rusticus
mopsus Hibner (the type of Strymon Hiibner) and that, in consequence, the name Bithys
Hubner will need to be brought into use for Papilio strephon Fabricius and its allies. For
the reasons explained at the beginning of the present paper, the application to a Strymonid
genus of the name Bithys Hubner would certainly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, in view of the fact that, whenever used in the past, this name has been applied
to an entirely different group in the tribe THECLINI.

The foregoing analysis shows that, although there is now no risk of
confusion arising through the substitution of the name Bithys Hiibner for
the name Stvymon Hubner, there remains a serious risk of confusion arising,
on the next revision of the genus Strymon Hubner, as the result of the
application of the name bithys Hibner to a genus of the Strymonid group
of the tribe THECLINI, for this name has invariably been associated in the
literature with the group of genera represented by Thecla Fabricius. It is
very satisfactory, therefore, that, when at Madrid in September 1935 the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature decided to advise
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to defer taking
action under their plenary powers in regard to the application which we had
submitted in the present case, they expressly intimated that this action
should not, in their view, be held to prejudice the consideration by the
International Commission at a later date of a renewed application for the
suspension of the rules as respects the name Bithys Hiibner.”? As this
recommendation was accepted by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature,* the way is open for the submission of a revised
application as respects Bithys Hubner, whenever the revision of the genus
Stvymon Hibner renders that course desirable.

British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7.

5th March 1945.

? See paragraph 8 of Opinion 165 (p. 366 above)
8 See paragraph 10 of Opinion 165 (p. 366 above).

374 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commissign at 41, Queen’s
Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International
Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with,
zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above;
and d

‘The Bulletin was established in 1943, in which year three Parts were
published. Part 4 was published in 1944. Parts 5 and 6 are in the
press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently,
namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declavations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of which

is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions
I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the~--
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at
Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and.
Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the
index and title page of the volume. Parts 1-35, containing Declarations
Io-12 and Opinions 134-165, have now been published. Further Parts
will be published shortly.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 36. Pp. 375-398.

OPINION 166

On the status of the names Pompilus Fabricius,
1798, and Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) and of the
alleged generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784
(Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945

Price six shillings

Issued 21st August, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr Normmaniikey slOwe (Wis 7s"):

Class 1949

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). :

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr: Harold E VOKES (U.SiA\):

- Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
AI, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

; mom ACYL AY
YOR IOAK
Ss v) eo ee

OPINION 166.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES POMPILUS FABRICIUS,
1798, AND PSAMMOCHARES LATREILLE, 1796 (CLASS IN-
SECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA) AND OF THE ALLEGED
GENERIC NAME POMPILUS SCHNEIDER, 1784 (CLASS
CEPHALOPODA, ORDER NAUTILOIDEA). |

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)
is hereby suppressed : (ii) the name Pompilus is hereby suppressed
as a generic name in so far as it may have been so used prior to the
publication of the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 ; (iii) the name
Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, is hereby validated ; (iv) all type
designations for Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, made prior to the date
of the present Opinion, are hereby set aside ; and (v) Pompilus
pulcher Fabricius, 1798, is hereby designated as the type of Pom-
pilus Fabricius, 1798. There is no such generic name as Pompilus
Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda, Order Nautiloidea), the name
** Pompilus ”’ having been published by Schneider as the specific
trivial name of a species assigned by him to the genus Octopodia
Schneider, 1784. The name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, validated
as above and with Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1798, as type, is
hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as '
Name No. 612.

“L—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James
Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order
Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in all countries, the following petition
signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists
was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature :—

THE CASE OF POMPILUS VERSUS PSAMMOCHARES

Psammochares Latr., 1796, was proposed without included species. In
1802 1 (Hist. Nat. vol. III), Latreille adopted the Fabrician name Pompilus
for his Psammochares for reasons of euphony.

1 The full reference is Latreille, [1802-1803] (2m Sonnini’s Buffon),
Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 334. For the authority for the date
here assigned to this volume, see Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist.

e157.

378 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Although subsequently cited by Latreille as a synonym of Pompilus,
and once by Westwood (1840) Psammochares after Latreille’s adoption of
Pompilus to replace it escaped the attention of catalogers. It does not
appear in Dalla Torre’s Catalogus Hymenopterorum. It did not again
come into use until Banks (Journ. N.Y. ent. Soc., 1910, 18 : 114) pointed
out the facts above stated, and showed that under the rules Psammochares
and PSAMMOCHARIDAE must replace Pompilus and POMPILIDAE.

Supporting the adoption of Psammochares in lieu of Pompilus was the
supposed fact pointed out by Fox (1901) that Pompilus was preoccupied
in Cephalopoda. But it now appears that Pompilus is not preoccupied.
Dr. H. A. Pilsbry kindly informs us that Schneider’s pompilus was a specific,
not a generic name.?

The undersigned respectfully request the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to take the following action :—

(1) to suspend the rules in the cases of the genera Psammochares Latr.
and Pompilus Fabr.;

(2) to permanently reject Psammochares Latreille (originally proposed
without included species) ;

(3) to validate Pompilus Fabr., 1798, type Sphex viaticus L. (by designa-
tion of Latreille, 1810) ;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names, Pompilus Fabr., type
Sphex viaticus L., for the genus of fossorial wasps ordinarily known
by that name.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-
mission :—

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert J. D. Alfken * H. Brauns {

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
T. H. Frison * J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
A. R. Park * R. Fouts P. P. Babiy

H. H. Ross * G. Arnold VS. LsBate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch - J. C. Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

Gi Ty yle H. Hacker T. Uchida 7

R. A. Cushman * ALC, Kansey, * O. Vogt +

E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +
A. Crevecoeur F, Maidl R. Kruger f

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F, X. Williams +

H. von Ihering {
A. C. W. Wagner
H. Hedicke

H. Bischoff

L. Masi

A. von Schulthess
R. B. Benson *
H. F. Schwarz
W. V. Balduf *
D. S. Wilkinson *

O. Schmiedeknecht 7
N. N. Kuznezov-
Ugamtsky +

i Deceased:

2 See paragraph 14 below.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 160. 379

ere SUB SRhOURND HISTORY OF THE CASE:

4. This case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935, during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Inter-
national Committee formed the conclusion that it was desirable
that the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
should use their plenary powers in order to preserve the long-
established name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, with the family name
POMPILIDAE, since, having regard to the literature as a whole,
confusion rather than uniformity would result from the super-
session of these names by the names Psammochares Latreille, 17096,
and PSAMMOCHARIDAE. The International Committee agreed,
therefore, to recommend that the name Psammochares Latreille
and also Pompilus Schneider, 1784 (Class Cephalopoda, Order
Nautiloidea), if that name had in fact been published as a generic
name, should be suppressed. As regards the genus Pompilis
Fabricius, the International Committee were of the opinion that
the most satisfactory course would be for the International Com-
mission to designate Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1708, as its type.

5. The above and other recommendations adopted by the
International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were
confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at
the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

Mi—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CREATURE.

3 See paragraph 14 below.

380 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
_ mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which
a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the
Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to
such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“under suspension of the rules’”’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases
in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic-
able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no
Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said
advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for
publication. The case of Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Psammochares
Latreille, 1796, and Pompilus Schneider, 1784, was one of the
cases in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Com-
mission under the above procedure.

7. This case was considered by the International Commission
at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2), when the
Commission agreed 4 :—

(b) under “‘ suspension of the rules ’’ permanently to reject the following
generic names :—

(11) Psammochares Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 115

(18) Pompilus Schneider, 1784, Sammi. verm. Abh. : 128 (if intended
as a generic name °)

(c) under “‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations
for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

4 Only those portions of conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are
here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 27-30.

° See paragraph 14 below.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 381

Name of genus Type of genus

(27) Pompilus Fabricius, Pompilus pulcher Fabricius, 1798,
1798, Suppl. Ent. syst.: Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249
212

(d) under ‘‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to place on the Oficial List of Generic
Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above (names
(19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

8. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the
report, which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday,
18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology.

_g. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session,
5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that Commissioner Karl Jordan
(President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Com-
mission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrange-
ments and to take such other action, as might appear to them to
be necessary or expedient :—

) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-

quarters ;

(11) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time
to time by the Commission ;

(iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their
Lisbon Session ;

(iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com
mission; and generally

(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved
by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the
International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day.
It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at
the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

ir. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at
Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 6
above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

382 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.6 In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, the Com-
mission have received two communications objecting to the
suspension of the rules in this case. These communications are
as follows :—

(a) Document forwarded under cover of a letter dated 1st March 1937 by Dr.
S. A. Rohwer in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the
Entomological Society of Washington

THE CASE OF POMPILUS FABR., 1798

The genus Psammochares was proposed by Latreille, 1796 (Précis Caract.
Gen. Insect., p. 115), without included species. In 1802 7 (Hist. Nat. Crust.
& Insect., vol. 3: 335) the same author cited Pompilus viaticus F. as an
example of Pompilus and in his discussion of this genus remarked “ J’avois
etabli le premier ce genre sous le nom de psammochare.’’®& In 1803
(Nouv. Dict. Hist. Nat., vol. 5: 158) Latreille definitely cited Sphex fusca
(L.), which was one of the 37 species originally included in Pompilus by
Fabricius, as type of Psammochares. ‘This type fixation is in accordance
with present usage. In 1810 (Consid. gén., p. 437) he designated ‘ Pom-
pilus viaticus Fab.’’ = Sphex viatica L. genotype of Pompilus. Recent
examination of the type of viatica has shown (Haupt, Deut. Ent. Zeit., 1927,
Beiheft p. 308; Richards, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 88 : 165, 1935) that, based
on viatica, Pompilus must be considered identical with Podalonia Spinola,
1853.° Furthermore it has not yet been conclusively shown that Pompilus
Fabr., 1798, 1s not preoccupied by Pompilus Schneider, 1784.19 Both are
recognized aS generic names in Sherborn’s Index Animalium and in the
Nomen. Animatium Gen. et. Subgen. now being issued. '

Since Banks, 1910 (Jour. N.Y. Ent. Soc. vol. 18 : 114), called attention to
the fact that Psammochares Latr., has priority over Pompilus Fabr. the
principal workers in the family have employed the name Psammochares
for this genus. Included among these are Banks, Haupt,1! Arnold,1?
Gussakovsky, Nielsen, Grandi,!! Turner, Williams,!! Bréthes, Bernard,
Maréchal, Richards,11 and Sustera. During this period the name Pompilus
has virtually appeared only in connection with scattered biological notes.
To reject now the prior Psammochares Latr. in favor of the subsequent
Pompilus Fabr. would result in overturning the nomenclature of the group

6 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

7 The correct date is [1802-1803]. See footnote I.

8 The remainder of Latreille’s observation here quoted reads as follows :
—‘‘ J’abandonne volontiers cette dénomination pour prendre celle de
pompile, qui est plus douce a Ioreille.”’

® The correct date for this name is [1851]. The reference is Mem. Accad
Sei. Lorimo (2) 13840) 3 53.

10 See paragraph 14 below.

11 Tt will be seen from paragraph 2 of the present Opinion that this
author’s name is one of those included in the list of signatories of the
petition submitted to the International Commission in favour of the sus-
pension of the rules in this case.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 383

which has been nearly uniform for the past twenty-five years, during
which time more progress has been made in the taxonomy of this family
than in any other similar period.

In this case only confusion can result from the proposed action under
suspension of the rules.

(b) Extract from a letter dated 28th March 1937 from Dr. Charles D. Michener,
Berkeley, California

Psammochares is the name now in general use, and is correct without a
suspension of the rules.

12. Immediately upon their receipt by the Commission, copies
of the documents from which the passages quoted in paragraph 11
have been extracted were communicated (April 1937) to each
member of the Commission, but since that date no member of the
Commission has expressed himself as being in agreement with the
representations contained therein.

13. The representations set out in paragraph rr above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of
the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in
London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution
adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on
18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9g
apeve Phe Plenary Conterence (Plenary Conference, 1st
Meeting, Conclusion g) 1* :— :

(b) examined the communications that had been received during the
prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :—

(viii) Pompilus Fabricius, 1798
from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington; and from Charles D. Michener,
Berkeley, California.

e e e e ee @

(c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to
in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Commission
immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Commission had
expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the representa-
tions contained therein ;

(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought
forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour
of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in resolu-
tions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International Congress
of Entomology at Madrid in the same year ;

12 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 76-77.

384 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the
present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions
in this matter reached by the International Commission at their
Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that
Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated
in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by that
Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st September

1935:

14. At the meeting held at Lisbon on Wednesday, 18th Septem-
ber 1935, at which the International Commission agreed upon
their report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6), the Commission
agreed also “ to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the
report after the close of the Congress when works of reference were
available to him, for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the
bibliographical and other references cited therein, and to correct
any errors that might be found before the text of the report was
officially printed”’ (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
1(c)). One of the questions which was left for subsequent deter-
mination in this way was whether, as alleged by certain authors,
there existed a generic name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, and
whether, in consequence, the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1708,
dealt with in the present Opinion, would be a homonym, unless
the earlier name Pompilus Schneider was suppressed by the
Commission under their plenary powers. This question was
accordingly investigated jointly by Commissioner Hemming and
Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission), when
in the spring of 1943 Commissioner Hemming began the preparation
of the present Opinion. A careful study was made of the work
entitled Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der
Zoologie und der Handlungsgeschichte published by Schneider
(J. G.) in 1784,18 the work in which, as it was alleged, that author
had published the word Pompilus as a generic name. This
examination showed conclusively :—

(i) that Schneider used the word “‘ Pompilus ”’ not as a generic name but
as the trivial name of one of the species there included by him in the
genus Octopodia Schneider (then diagnosed for the first time on
page 108 of the Sammlung) ;

13 The copy of Schneider’s Sammlung examined was the copy which
formerly belonged to the late Dr. C. D. Sherborn, which is now preserved in
the Zoological Library of the British Museum (Natural History).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 385

(ii) that the mistaken view that the name Pompilus and certain other
similarly placed names had been used by Schneider as generic names
was due probably to the fact (a) that the specific trivial name
Pompilus and the other specific trivial names concerned were
printed in large conspicuous type and with a capital initial letter,
while (b) the name of the genus (Octopodia Schneider) to which
these species were referred was printed inconspicuously and in the
same type as that used for the immediately following diagnosis
given for that genus; }

(iii) that the species to which Schneider applied the specific trivial name
“ Pompilus”’ (i.e. the species to which he applied the (binominal)
specific name Octopodia Pompilus Schneider) is the species previously
named Nautilus pompilius by Linnaeus in 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed.
10) 1: 709, this being clearly shown by the reference thereto cited
by Schneider ;

(iv) that the reason why Schneider applied the specific trivial name
pompilus to the species previously named Nautilus pompilius by
Linnaeus was that, as a scholar and the editor of many classical
works, he considered that the scientific names of animals should, so
far as possible, be the “‘ original Greek or Latin names ”’ for those
species. 14

15. The results (summarised above) of the examination of

Schneider's Sammlung thus made it perfectly clear that the valida-
tion of the generic name Pom*pilus Fabricius, 1798 (Class Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) decided upon by the International Com-
mission at Lisbon in 1935 *° does not involve (as it was then
thought that it might) the suppression (under the Commission’s
plenary powers) of an earlier generic name, Pompilus Schneider,
1784, since, in fact, Schneider never published any such generic.
name. There is no evidence of any kind to suggest that any
author used the word “ Pompilus”’ asa generic name in any
other work prior to the publication of the name Pompilus
by Fabricius in 1798, but, in order to provide against this
remote contingency, it remains desirable that provision should
be made in the Ofinion validating Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, for
the suppression of any such use of the name Pompilus.

16. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)

Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of

the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners:—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki:
Bradley vice Stone,; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

14 For the text of the report prepared by Commissioner Hemming in
conjunction with Commissioner Jordan, see the Appendix to the present
Opinion.

15 See paragraph 7 of the present Opinion.

386 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

17. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter

18. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman 7 Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

1g. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the said rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals specified to in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 387

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty Six (Opinion 166) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

DoNnE in London, this twenty second day of June, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

388 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

APPENDIX TO OPINION 166

On the status of the name Pompilus and certain other names commonly
alleged to have been published as generic names by Schneider (J. G.) in 1784,
Sammlung vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklarung der Zoo-
logie und der Handlungsgeschichte, and on matters incidental
thereto. .

By Francis HEMMING, CMG. Ciba

(Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.)

At their Session held at Lisbon in 1935 the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature agreed to use their plenary powers for the purpose
of validating the generic name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. :
212 (type: Pompilus pulchey Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249)
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2(b)(18) and (c)(27), published in
1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 28, 29). The principal question involved in
that case was the situation created by the existence of the older name
Psammochares Latreille, 1796, for this genus. There was, however, a
secondary problem arising from the alleged publication of the name
Pompilus as a generic name by Schneider (J. G.) in 1784, Sammlung
vermischter Abhandlungen zur Aufklavung der Zoologie und der Handlungs-
_ geschichte : 128, since, if there had been such a generic name as Pompilus
Schneider, 1784, the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, would have been ~
invalid as a homonym, quite apart from the difficulties created by the
existence of the name Psammochares Latreille, 1796. After careful con-
sideration, the International Commission unanimously agreed to overcome
these difficulties (i) by suppressing the name Psammochares Latreille, 1796,
under their plenary powers and (ii) by suppressing under the same powers
the name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, ‘‘ if intended as a generic name.”’

2. It was not possible at Lisbon to consult a copy of Schneider’s Samm-
lung and, in order to provide for this and certain similar cases, the Interna-
tional Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on 18th September 1935
agreed “‘ to authorise Commissioner Hemming to examine the report after
the close of the Congress when works of reference. were available to him,
for the purpose of checking the accuracy of the bibliographical and other
references cited therein, and to correct any errors which might be found
before the text of the report was officially printed ’’ (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion (1c), published in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 44).
Accordingly, the problem created by the alleged existence of the generic
name Pompilus Schneider, 1784, was examined by Commissioner Francis
Hemming, Secretary to the Commission, jointly with Commissioner Karl
Jordan, President of the Commission, in the early part of 1943, when the
text of Opinion 166, containing the Commission’s decision in regard to
Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, was in course of preparation.

3. The results of the examination of Schneider’s Sammlung of 1784 may
be summarised as follows :—

(a) The title of the article in Schneider’s Sammlung in which the name
“ Pompilus’’ appears is: ‘‘ Charakteristik des ganzen Geschlechts
und der einzelnen Arten von Blakfischen,”’ the article in question
extending from page 103 to page 134.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 389

(b) In the above article, Schneider :—

(i) referred (:105) to the roth edition of the Systema Naturae
of Linnaeus and quoted the diagnosis there given by Linnaeus
for the genus Sepia Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 658
(though he did not cite the date of the roth edition or give
the page reference) ;

(ii) referred to the above diagnosis by the expression ‘ Ges-
chlechtskarakter ”’ ;

(iii) said that he could not retain in its entirety and without altera-

_ tion the ‘“‘ Geschlechtskarakter ”’ (diagnosis) given by Linnaeus
for the genus Sepia Linnaeus ;

(iv) gave a new “ Geschlechtskarakter’’ for this genus covering
all the species (“‘ Arten’’) which he regarded as referable
thereto;

(v) set out (: 108) the revised ‘“‘ Geschlechtskarakter ’”’ in Latin
accompanied with a version in German, thus :—

Octopodia. Caput cum oculis inter pedes et ventrem.. .
(and so on)

Blakfisch. Kopf und Augen zwischen Leib und Fiissen .
(and so on); |

(vi) stated that he had selected as the name of the “‘ Geschlecht ”’
the word “‘ Octopodia ’» employed in late Greek, in place of the
ancient name Polypus (‘Ich habe zum allgemeinen Geschlechts-
namen ein Wort gewahlt, welches die neuern Griechen statt
des alten Polypus brauchten’’), and accordingly placed the
name Ocitopodia at the head of the Latin text of the
““Geschlechtskarakter’’ (quoted in (v) above) of this genus, the
counterpart in the German version being “ Blakfisch’’ (that
name being derived from the German word “ blaken,’’ used to
denote the “ smoking ”’ of a candle or lamp) ;

(vil) divided the ‘“‘ Geschlecht ”’ Octopodia Schneider into two groups
(“ Classen ’’), to which, however, he applied no names;

(vili) stated that he gave to each species its old Greek or Latin name
(“ damit ich hernach einer jeden Art ihren alten griechischen

. oder lateinischen Namen wieder geben méchte ”’).

(ix) enumerated under the names shown in (c) below the eight
species which he referred to the genus Octopodia Schneider.

Note :—The following points should be noted: (a) Schneider cited the generic
name Octopodia Schneider only on page 108 and did not repeat it in combination
with the specific trivial names of the eight species referred by him to that genus,
each of those species being cited by him only by its specific trivial name, that name
being printed with a capital initial letter (as “ Sepia,” “ Loligo,” etc.); (b) As
explained in (b)(viii) above, Schneider did not regard as new names the specific
trivial names which he employed, but looked on them as old names revived, though
in fact five of them are new names nomenclatorially, since Schneider was the first
author to publish them after 1757 as the specific trivial components of binominal names
formed in accordance with the system instituted by Linnaeus in 1758.

ERSTE CLASSE (: 100)
(i) Octopodia sepia Schneider, 1784

Schneider showed that his ‘ Sepia ’’ was the same species |
as Sepia officinalis Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 658,
MOw2e wi Diese Art: halt sich in Meer naher am Strande
auf.’’)

390 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(ii) Octopodia loligo (Linnaeus, 1758)
This species is Sepia loligo Linnaeus 1758, Syst. Nat.
(ed. ro) 1:659, no. 4. (~ Dies soll nach Linnee [sic] die
grosse Art des Rondelet und Needham sein.”’’)

(ili) Octopodia teuthis Schneider, 1784
This species is the same as Sepia media Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10))1 3059, no: 3.) Dies ist die tant melemc
Linnee [sic] Media nennt.’’)

(iv) Octopodia sepiola (Linnaeus, 1758)
This species is Sepia sepiola Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat.
(ed. ro) 1: 659, no! 5. (Schneider ‘says of) thiss species):
' Diese Art ist bunt.’22)

ZWEYTE [Sic] CLASSE (: 116)

(v) Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784
This species is the same as Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1:658,no.1. Schneider used the specific
trivial name polypus because it was the old Greek name for this
and, therefore, preferable, in his opinion, to the name octo-
podia used by Linnaeus in 1758. (Schneider says of this
species: ‘‘ Die Hauptschriftsteller von dieser Art, welche
in dem angefiihrten Kennzeichen mit einander iibereinstim-
, men, sind Herr Hasselquist und Koelreuter.’’)
(vi) Octopodia moschites Schneider, 1784

The name moschites does not appear in the roth edition of
Linnaeus. ‘The description given by Schneider was based on
classical and later accounts. The name moschites is derived
from modern Greek: ‘“ Die neuern Griechen sollen ihn
wooxttyg nennen.”’

(vil) Octopodia nautilus Schneider, 1784

Schneider made it clear that this species is the same as
Argonauta argo Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 708,
no. 231. Schneider added: ‘‘ Diese Art hat Aristoteles mit
Recht zu dem Geschlechte der Meerpolypen gezahlt.”’

(vili) Octopodia pompilus [[recte] pompilius | (Linnaeus, 1758)

This is the species named Nautilus pompilius by Linnaeus
In 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 700, no. 233. Whe spellimevor
the specific trivial name as “ pompilus’’ instead of
“ pompilius ’’ was due either to an error of transcription on
the part of Schneider or to a deliberate return to classical
spelling. Schneider said of this species: ‘‘ Ich gebe dieser
Art den Namen, welchen Linnee [sic] aus dem Plinius beigelegt
hat, ob er ihr gleich nicht zukommt.”’

(d) In view of the fact that Linnaeus erroneously placed the genera
Argonauta Linnaeus, 1758, and Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, among the
univalve mollusca, Schneider, when uniting these genera with Sepia
Linnaeus, 1758, to form the genus Octopodia Schneider, 1784, was
quite justified in using the expression ‘““ des ganzen Geschlechts ”’ in
the title of his article and in saying, as regards his own diagnosis

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 391

(‘‘ Geschlechtskarakter ’’) of the genus Octopodia Schneider, that it
covered all the species referred by him to that genus.

4. It will be seen from the foregoing analysis of Schneider’s Sammlung
of 1784 that there is no such generic name as Pompilus Schneider, 1784, and
in consequence that the name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, has at no time
been a homonym. Accordingly, no difficulty arises under this head in
connection with Opinion 166.

5. Certain nomenclatorial issues, unconnected with Opinion 166, are,
however, disclosed by the examination of Schneider’s Sammlung. As it is
clearly most desirable that, where it is necessary in a given Opinion (as in
Opinion 166) to examine the status of a particular name (as Octopodia
pompilus Schneider, 1784), account should be taken of the effects of the
conclusions reached not only as regards the particular name in question but
also as regards any other name or names, the status of which is identical
with that of the name examined. In the present case it is desirable,
therefore, to examine the status of the other names used by Schneider in
the article in which he described the species Octopodia pompilus [sic] (Lin-
naeus, 1758). The following notes are accordingly added, in order to
show how the conclusions reached in regard to the specific trivial name
“ pompilus ’’ used by Schneider for species no. 8 in his genus Octopodia affect
the other names used by him in the same article. Finally, a note is added
in regard to the position of the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784.

6. The position as regards the specific trivial names used by Schneider in
1784 for species placed by him in the genus Octopodia Schneider may be
summarised as follows :—

(1) There is no force in either of the two arguments which at different
times have been advanced against accepting as available under the
Régles Internationales the names first published by Schneider in his
Sammlung in 1784, namely :—

(a) that it is not clear that he used the expression ‘“‘ Geschlecht ”’
as the equivalent of the expression “ genus ’’ of Linnaeus; and

(b) that he divided the “ Geschlecht ’’ Octopodia into ‘‘ Classen,”’
thereby departing from the binary system of nomenclature.

(2) As regards objection 1(a) above, it has already been shown conclu-
sively in Section (b) of paragraph 3 of the present paper that
Schneider’s expression “‘ Geschlecht’”’ is identical with the expression
“genus ’”’ as used by Linnaeus. Further, it should be noted that in
various forms the expression “‘ Geschlecht ’’ has often been used by
other authors as the equivalent of the expression “‘ genus’’ and,
therefore, that Schneider’s use of this expression in this sense, though
now not usual, is far from being unique. For example, towards the
end of the XVIIIth century and at the beginning of the XIXth
century, the word “ Geschlecht ’’ was in quite common use as the
designation for the systematic category next above the category of
“species”? and as the equivalent, therefore, of the expressions
meeciusssudeatin)) “eenre, = (erench), “(Gattune:’” (German); “ ges-
lacht’’ (Dutch), and “ slagt’’ (Swedish). Moreover, these words
are all still in use to the present day in works on systematic zoology.
The following are examples of such usage at various dates :—

(a) Fuessli, 1778, Mag. Ent.1:2 & ff. (Review of Voet’s Catalogus
systematicus Coleoptervorum) : ‘Genus primum: Scarvabaeus.
Von diesem Geschlechte sind bis S. 34 iberhaubt 153 Arten
beschrieben und abgebildet. 5S. 35 folgt: Genus secundum,
Copris, Von diesem Geschlechte sind erst 1o Arten be-
Schmeben) .).5., (and soon):

392 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(b) Helmuth, 1808, Naturgeschichte 5. ‘‘ Das Geschlecht der
Kolbenkafer, Scavabaeus’’ (:24); ‘‘ Das Geschlecht der
Bockkafer, Cervambyx’’ (: 41); ‘‘ Das Geschlecht der Wasser-
kafer. Dytiscus *’ (= 48). : «(and soon).

(c) A. van Bemmelen, in Herklots, 1858, Bouwstoffen voor eene Fauna
van Nederland 2:140. ‘“‘ Ons land is rijk an soorten van het
geslacht Cyprinus; de best bekende zijn:’’ (Here follows a
list of 6 species: Cyprinus rutilus, Cyprinus brama, etc.).

(d) Reuter, 1380,1n Bat. Mdsky 1). 117. Slagtoiversicc: sare:
‘survey (or key) of genera ’’).

(3) Objection (1)(b) above rests on the argument that Schneider was
not an author who applied the principles of binary nomenclature and,
therefore, that names published by him do not satisfy the require-
ments of proviso (b) to Article 25 of the Régles Internationales. The
only evidence brought forward in support of this contention is that
Schneider divided the “‘ Geschlecht ”’ Octopodia Schneider, 1784, into
two groups (which he called “ Classen ’’), intermediate in rank be-
tween genus and species. This objection is ill-founded, (a) because
Schneider did not give names to his “‘ Classen ’’ and (b) because,
even if he had given names to his ‘‘ Classen,’’ such action would
still not have constituted a departure from the principles of binary
nomenclature. Quite apart from the fact that the FRégles Interna-
tionales recognise (Articles 6-10) the subgenus as a category inter-
mediate between the genus and the species, it should be noted that
many strictly binominal authors from the time of Linnaeus onwards
have established groups within a genus identical with the ‘“‘ Classen ”
established by Schneider and that many of these authors have given
Latin names (in the nominative plural) to the groups so established.
See, for example, the six named groups established by Linnaeus
within the genus Gryllus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 425-—
433 (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera). In actual fact, as will be
seen from paragraph 3(c) of the present paper, Schneider in his
Sammlung of 1784 employed a strictly binominal system of nomen-
clature. Since a binominal system of nomenclature is ex hypothest
a binary system of nomenclature, it is not necessary here to consider
whether Schneider used a system of nomenclature, which, though not
binominal, was nevertheless a binary system in the sense in which
that expression is interpreted in Opinion 20. This is fortunate,
since the validity of the interpretation of the expression “‘ binary
nomenclature ’’ as given in that Opinion is at present sub judice
(see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 45, 55).

(4) In view of (2) and (3) above, no grounds exist on which either the
generic or the specific trivial names first published by Schneider in
his Sammlung of 1784 can be rejected as not satisfying the require-
ments of the frégles Internationales. All such names possess, there-
fore, rights under the Law of Priority as from 1784.

(5) The only new generic name published by Schneider in the article
under discussion was Octopodia Schneider, 1784 (see paragraph 7
below). All the other generic names alleged to have been published
by Schneider in that article are cheironyms (being based upon a mis-
reading of the trivial names used by Schneider for species of the genus
Octopodia Schneider) and should, therefore, be deleted from all
zoological Nomenclators. The cheironyms in question are :—

Loligo Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl. Aufklar. Zool. : 110
Moschites Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 118
Polypus Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 116

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 3093

Pompilus Schneider, 1784, 1bid. : 128 16
Sepiola Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 116
Teuthis Schneider, 1784, ibid. : 113

In consequence of the elimination of the first five of the above
cheironyms, the following names are no longer invalid by reason of
being homonyms :—

Loligo Lamarck, 1798, Bull. Sci. Soc. philomat., Paris 17 : 130
Moschites Hoyle, 1901, Mem. Proc. Manchester lit. phil. Soc. 45
INOS) 25

ae Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 139

Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 212

Sepiola Leach, 1817, Zool. Miscell. 3 : 140

The elimination of the cheironym Teuthis Schneider, 1784 (and of
the cheironyms Nautilus Schneider, 1784, and Sepia Schneider,
1784, if either of these names have been cited in scientific publications)
can have no effect upon the nomenclature of the groups concerned,
since, even if such generic names had been published by Schneider
in 1784, they would have been invalid as homonyms under Article 34
of the Régles Internationales, in view of the existence of the prior
names Teuthis Linnaeus, 1766, Nautilus Linnaeus, 1758, and Sepia
Linnaeus, 1758.

ve The position as regards the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784,
may be summarised as follows :—

(I)

(2)

The generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, Samml. verm. Abhandl.
Aufkidy. Zool. : 108, is a nomenclatorially available name, since :—

(a) it was published with a definition (see paragraph 3(b)(v)
above), thereby satisfying the requirements of proviso (a) to
Article 25 of the Régles Internationales; and

(b) was published by an author who applied a strictly binominal
system of nomenclature, and, therefore, ex hypothesi a binary
system of nomenclature (see paragraphs 3(c) and 6(3) above),
thereby satisfying the requirements of proviso (b) to Article 25.

In view of (1) above, all uses of the word Octopodia as a new generic
name by later authors are invalid, since the generic name Octopodia
as used by such authors is a homonym of Octopodia Schneider, 1784.
Accordingly, the names Octopodia Gray, 1847, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond.
15 (178) : 205, and Octopodia Grimpe, 1925, Wiss. Meervesuntersuch.,
Abh. Helgoland 16 (3) : 13, are invalid under Article 34 of the Régles
Internationales.

At the time when the generic name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, was
published, Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 (one of the included
species) already possessed a name (Sepia octopodia Linnaeus, 1758),
of which the specific trivial component consisted of the same word
(octopodia) as that selected by Schneider as the name for his new
genus (Octopodia).

In view of (3) above and of the fact that Schneider did not designate
a type for the genus Octopodia Schneider, 1784, the type of that genus
is Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784, by absolute tautonymy under
rule (d) in Article 30 of the Régles Internationales.

16 The name Pompilus Fabricius, 1798, which, apart from being con-
sidered a homonym of Pompilus Schneider, 1784, was invalid as a synonym
of Psammochares Latreille, 1796, has been validated by the Internationa
Commission in Opinion 166 (see pp. 377-387 above).

394 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

8. Now that it is seen that Octopodia Schneider, 1784, is an available
generic name and that Octopodia polypus Schneider, 1784 (= Sepia octo-
podia Linnaeus, 1758) is the type of this genus, it will be necessary to
consider the position of the name Octopus Cuvier, [1797], Tabl. elem. : 380
(= Octopus Lamarck, 1798, Bull. Soc. Sci. philomat., Paris 17 : 130), since
clearly greater confusion than uniformity would result from the substitution
of the name Octopodia Schneider, 1784, for the name Octopus Cuvier, [1797].
Specialists interested in this question are accordingly invited to communi-
cate with the International Commission.

FRANCIS HEMMING.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

Secretariat of the Commission,
at the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7.

25th July 1943.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 166. 395

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. So far, six Parts have
been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Ofimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-37, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-167,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing
Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

396 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’? and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’. |

PRINTED IN GRI

T BRITAIN BY
Cray . NY, Li

ompaNy, Lrtp.,

a 8

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 37. Pp. 399-410.

OPINION 167

Suspension of the rules for Euthalia Hubner,
[1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price three shillings

Issued 21st August, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946 |

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U:S.A.),

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold 2: VOKES (U:S.A:)

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

Wis

OPINION 167.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR EUTHALIA HUBNER,
[1819] (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA). |

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared
that page priority shall not be invoked to secure precedence for
Symphaedra Hubner, [1819] (type: Symphaedra alcandra Hiibner,
[1819]), over Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] (type: Papilio lubentina
Cramer, [1777]), and the name Euthalia Hiibner is therefore valid.
This decision does not affect the validity of the Symphaedra Hiibner,
if and when it may be desired on taxonomic grounds to place
Symphaedra alcandra Hubner and Papilio lubentina Cramer in
different genera. The name Euthalia Hiibner, [1819] (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera), with the type indicated above, is hereby added
to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 613.

IL—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 24th October 1934, in
which Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley,
Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum
(Natural History), jointly invited the Commission to render
Opimons in regard to this, and certain other, generic names in
the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). The passage in that
letter relating to the name Euthalia Hiibner reads as follows :—

(a) We recommend that the following names should be added by the

International Commission to the Official List of Generic Names. Our
reasons for so recommending are fully set out in the statements, the

terms of which we have jointly agreed, contained in Hemming’s
Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies on the pages noted below:—

* At the time that this application was made to the International Com-
mission, there was much uncertainty regarding the dates of publication of
the entomological works of Jacob Hubner, and in particular of his Verzeich-
niss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic]. These doubts have since been put to rest
by the discovery of Hiibner’s original manuscripts. The correct date for
Euthaha Hibner is [1819]. See Opinion 150 (1943, Opinions and Declara-
tions rendered by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
1 ; 161-168).

402 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY. THE INTERNATIONAL

2. The following is an extract from the work referred to above
of the passage relating to this genus :

EUTHALIA Hiibner

Hiibner, [1818],? Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (3) : 41
Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sc1., Boston 10 : 176

TYPE: Papilio lubentina Cramer, 1777 3

Of the two species given by Hiibner, Scudder selected /ubentina Cram. as
the type.

On a strict application of the rules in the International Code of Zoological
Nomenclature the name Symphaedva Hiibner, [1818],? should take prece-
dence of Euthalia Hiibner, [1818].2, Nomenclatorially, both Euthalia
Hiibner and Symphaedva Hiibner are valid names, but one must sink as a
synonym of the other, as their respective types (Papilio lubentina Cram.,
1777° and Symphaedva alcandva Hubner, [1818] ?) are congeneric. Both
names were published simultaneously by Hubner in the Verz. bekannt.
Schmett. The name Symphaedra Hibner was published on p. 40 and the
name Euthala Hiibner on p. 41. Thus on the principle of page priority,
Euthaha Hibner should fall as to Symphaedra Hibner.

There are, however, very strong reasons against such an arrangement.
The name Euthaha Hibner has been applied without challenge to lubentina
Cram. and its numerous allies ever since the establishment of the name by
Hiibner one hundred and sixteen years ago. On the other hand, the name
Symphaedva Hubner has hardly ever been used except to distinguish a
single species, alcandva Hiibner (= nais Forster), from the other species of
Euthaha Hibner. Bingham (1905, Fauna Brit. Ind. Butt. 13271) and
Fruhstorfer (1913, 7” Seitz, Gvossschmett. Erde 9 : 680) have, however, shown
that there are no structural characters by which alcandva Hibner (= nats
Forster) can be distinguished from lubentina Cram.

The position is, therefore, that a strict application of the Code would :—

(i) deprive Papilo lubentina Cram., 1777,? and its numerous congeners
of the generic name Euthalia Hubner by which they have been
known universally ever since its establishment by Hibner in 1818; ?

(ii) transfer those species to the genus Symphaedva Hubner, a name
which has hardly ever been used except (mistakenly) to distinguish
alcandra Hiibner (= nais Forster) generically from lubentina Cram.
and its congeners.

I am of the opinion :—

(a) that it would be highly undesirable to disturb the universally accepted
use of the name Euthalia Hibner, [1818],? for Papilio lubentina Cram.,
1777,° and its congeners, by transferring them to the genus Sym-
phaedra Hubner, [1818],? and

(b) that the strict application of the rules of the International Code in
this case would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity.

3. Commissioner Hemming went on to say that, jointly with Mr.
N. D. Riley, he was submitting to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation that, in the

2 The correct date of this name is [1819]. See footnote 1.

3 As the dates of publication of the Parts in which Cramer’s Uitlandsche
Kapellen was published can only be determined by the inspection of a copy
still in original wrappers, the dates of names published in this work should
be cited in squares brackets.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 403

exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the Inter-
national Zoological Congress, the Commission should as soon as
possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the pro-
mulgation of an Opinion to the following effect : —

The name Euthalia Hiibner, [1818]? (type Papilio lubentina Cram.,
1777) ® is hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names. The name
Symphaedra Hubner, [1818] 21s, therefore, not to be substituted for Euthalia
‘Hiibner, [1818],2 on the ground that it has page priority over that name, .
though it is available for use for Symphaedva alcandva Hibner, [1818] ?

(= Papilio nais Forster, 1771), by such systematists as may regard that
species as generically distinct from Papilio lubentina Cram., 1777.°

me wah SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

4. Asa first step the International Commission decided to invite
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to
report on the present application. This case was accordingly
considered by the International Committee at their meeting held
at Madrid in the second week of September 1935 during the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology. After careful
consideration, the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature agreed to recommend the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to take such steps as they might
consider necessary under their plenary powers to secure that the
name Symphaedra Hiibner, [1819], should not replace the name
Euthalia Hibner, [1819], as the generic name for Papilio lubentina
Cramer, [1777], and the large number of species congeneric
therewith.

5. This and other recommendations adopted by the Interna-
tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their
Madrid meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Con-
gress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on
12th September 1935.

IiJ.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

404. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under
suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question
should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after
the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should
be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement
was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The
case of the name Euthalia Hiibner, [1819], was one of the cases in
question and was accordingly dealt with under the above pro-
cedure. : |

7. This case was considered by the International Commission
later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when it was agreed :—*

(a) to ‘‘ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :—

(f) to declare that page precedence shall not be invoked to secure pre-
cedence for Symphaedva Hibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (3) : 40
(type: Symphaedra alcandva Hibner, [1819], 1zbid. (3) : 40) over
Euthaha Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (3) : 41 (type: Papilio
lubentina Cramer, [1777]); that the name Euthalia Hubner is there-
fore valid; but that this decision would not affect the validity of
Symphaedra Hiibner, [1819], if and when it may be desired on taxono-
mic grounds to place Symphaedra alcandva Hubner, [1819], and
Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777], in different genera ;

(i) to add the generic names . . . Euthalia Hubner, [1819], . . . to the
Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above;

a Va (ies ‘a, le

(l) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above.

—

4 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case are
here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 20-23. : ve

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 405
)

8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con-
ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any
given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict
application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion
than uniformity.° In the period that has elapsed since the
advertisement in the said journals of the possible suspension of
the rules as applied to the present case, no communication of any
kind has been addressed to the Commission objecting to the issue
of an Opinion in the terms proposed.

10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners:—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Sinners.

Alternates : 86 Amaral vice Caner Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

11. Fhe present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that

5 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by ee
nternational Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

406 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter.

12. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the above Opinion : —

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

13. At the time that the vote was taken on the present Opinion
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Ofzmion in terms of
the present Opinion ;

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 407

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Sixty Seven (Opinion 167) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission .on Zoological Nomencla-
ture, have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this first day of July, Nineteen Hundred and
Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in the
archives of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

408 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.
This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and 3

The Bulletin was established in 1943. So far, six Parts have
been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.
The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Ofimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts I-37, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opimions 134-167,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 167. 409

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘* International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY
RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFTOLK.

Ket,

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by :
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 38. Pp. 411-430.

OPINION 168

On the principles to be observed in interpreting

Article 30 of the International Code in relation

to the names of genera based upon erroneously

determined species (Opinion supplementary to
Opinion 65)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1945
Price five shillings

Issued 25th September, 1945

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.)

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

RQSOMAN INS Tiigy

arionar wwe

OPINION 168.

ON THE PRINCIPLES TO BE OBSERVED IN INTERPRETING
ARTICLE 30 OF THE INTERNATIONAL CODE IN RELATION
TO THE NAMES OF GENERA BASED UPON ERRONEOUSLY
DETERMINED SPECIES (OPINION SUPPLEMENTARY TO
OPINION 65).

SUMMARY.—Article 30 of the International Code is to be inter-
preted as meaning that, as a specimen is the type of a species, so
a species is the type of a genus. Opinion 65 is to be interpreted as
directing (i) that, in the absence of evidence to the contrary, it is
to be assumed that the original author of a genus correctly identi-
fied the species assigned by him thereto, whether the species in
question was designated as the type of the genus by that author or,
no species having been so designated, is a species selected as the type
by a later author acting under rule (g) in Article 30 of the Code,
and (ii) that in the latter event it is to be further assumed that the
later author correctly identified the species so selected, but (iii)
that, where there is evidence that either or both of these assump-
tions is at variance with the facts, the case should be submitted
with full details to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, and (iv) that, pending their decision thereon, the
genus should be regarded as of doubtful status.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE: CASE.

In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the
consideration of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a paper dealing with certain difficulties which had
arisen in the interpretation of Opimion 65 (which relates to the
determination of the types of genera based upon erroneously
determined species) and asking for a clarification of that Opinion,
with special reference to the status of certain genera in the Order
Lepidoptera (Class Insecta).

2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to the interpre-
tation of Opinion 65 reads as follows ? :—

1 The text of Part 2 of this paper dealing with individual generic names
in the Order Lepidoptera is not reproduced in the present Opinion, which is °
concerned only with the general principles discussed in Part 1. The several
portions of Part 2 dealing with individual generic names are, however,

4I4 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

ON THE PROBLEM OF GENERA BASED UPON ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED
SPECIES, WITH SPECIAL REFERENCE TO CERTAIN GENERA IN THE
LEPIDOPTERA RHOPALOCERA

By Francis Hemming, C.B.E.

Introductory

While preparing my Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies, the first
volume of which appeared last year,* I found myself confronted with the
names of a number of genera based upon erroneously determined species.
When I turned to Opinion 65, I found that, although the title of that
Opinion (‘‘ Case of a genus based upon an erroneously determined species ’’)
is of a general character, thus indicating that the International Commission:
intended it to cover all the classes of genera involved, the actual subject
matter dealt with by the Commission in the ““ summary ”’ is very limited.
It is confined indeed to one only of the classes of case concerned, and that
one of the least frequent, although a second class of case is discussed in the
“statement of the case ’’ on which that Opinion is founded. On the other
hand, Opinion 65 gives implicit guidance regarding the principles to be
applied in dealing with the other classes of case. Moreover, that Opinion
lays down the important general proposition that, where any specialist
encounters a genus which appears to be based upon an erroneously deter-
mined species, he should submit full particulars to the Commission.

2. In view of the relatively large number: of cases which I have en-
countered in a single Sub-Order (Rhopalocera) of one Order (Lepidoptera)
of insects, it cannot be doubted that in the Animal Kingdom as a whole the
number of genera based upon erroneously determined species must be
considerable. For this reason alone it is clearly desirable that the Inter-
national Commission should now elucidate the principles laid down im-.
plicitly in Opinion 65. The lack of such guidance is already causing real
inconvenience to those whose business it is to determine the types of genera
in various groups and is retarding the development of classification.

3. The preparation of such an Opinion would not involve the Commission
in any substantial amount of additional work, since it will in any case be
necessary for the Commission to formulate for their own guidance the
principles involved before they can reach decisions on the particular cases
in the Order Lepidoptera now submitted. Once those principles have been
formulated, there is clearly everything to be gained by their being set out
in a special Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65 in a form readily accessible
to all systematic workers.

4. The primary object of the present application is to secure decisions
from the International Commission on the identity of the types of those
genera in the Order Lepidoptera which I have found to be based upon er-
roneously determined species. For the reasons explained above, the
secondary object of this application is to ask the International Commission,
once they have settled those cases, to render an Opinion setting out the
principles that have guided them in so doing.

5. Part 1 of the present paper is therefore concerned with the general
problem of the different classes of genera based upon erroneously determined
species. In this Part, I indicate the solution which appears to me to follow
from the principles implicit in the Opinion rendered by the Commission as
Opinion 65.

quoted in the Opinions dealing with those names, namely Opimions 169
(Lycaeides Hiibner) (pp. 431-442 below), 173 (Agviades Hubner), 175
(Polyommatus Latreille), 177. (Euchloé Hiibner), 179 (Princeps Hiibner),
and 181 (Cavchavodus Hibner).

* This volume was published by the Trustees of the British Museum
(Natural History) on 28th July 1934.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 415

6. Part 2 deals with the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera on
which I am asking for decisions from the International Commission. A
full statement of the relevant facts is given for each of the genera concerned,
together with suggestions for the solution of the problems involved.

Part 1. The Problems Raised by Genera Based upon Erroneously
Determined Species

7. The problems associated with genera based upon erroneously deter-
mined species were discussed by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at their meeting held in 1910 at Graz during the Eighth
International Congress of Zoology. As the result of that discussion, Dr.
C. W. Stiles, as Secretary to the Commission, opened a public debate on
this question in a paper which appeared in Science in April 1911 under the
title ‘“ What is the genotype of X-us Jones 1900, based upon a species
erroneously determined as albus Smith 1890?’ The statement of the case
as given in that paper read as follows :—

Statement of case—Jones proposes the new genus X-us, 1900, type species albus Smith,

go.

It later develops that albus Smith, 1890, as determined by Jones, 1900, is an erroneous
determination.

What is the genotype of X-us, 1900; albus Smith, 1890, or the form erroneously identi-
fied by Jones as albus in 1900?

8. As the result of the publication of this paper extensive correspondence
ensued between the Secretary to the Commission and specialists in various
groups, and this correspondence was laid before the Commission at their
meeting held at Monaco in 1913 during the meeting of the Ninth Interna-
tional Congress of Zoology. The Commission then decided, on Dr. Stiles’s
proposal, to refer the whole of the documents of the case to a specially
constituted Committee consisting of Commissioners Hartert, Allen and
Hoyle ‘‘ for recommendation as to action.”

; 9g. The Report submitted by the Hartert—Allen—Hoyle Committee was as
ollows :—

Case of a genus based upon a wrongly determined species

The Committee is of the opinion that as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species
is the type of a genus, and hence that when an author names a particular species as the
type of a new genus it is to be assumed that it has been correctly determined. Ifa case
should present itself in which it appears that an author has based his genus updn certain
specimens rather than upon a species, it should be submitted to the Commission for
consideration.

10. The foregoing Report was accepted by the Commission who thereupon
adopted it and ordered it to be published as their Opinio on this subject.+
Effect was given to this decision in March 1914 on the publication of Opinion
65. The title and “ summary ”’ (i.e. the operative portion) of that Opinion
are as follows :—

Case of a genus based upon erroneously determined species.

SUMMARY .—If an author designates a certain species as genotype, it is to be assumed
that his determination is correct; if a case presents itself in which it appears that an
author has based his genus upon certain definite specimens, rather than upon a species,
it would be well to submit the case, with full details, to the Commission. At the present
moment, it is difficult to lay down a general rule.

11. It will be noted that the ‘‘ summary ”’ of Opinion 65 deals in terms
only with the special case where a genus is based upon particular speci-
mens rather than a particular species although the “‘ statement of the case”’

Tt See Stiles, 1914, Smithson. miscel. Publ. 2256 : 169.
t Published in rorg, ibid. 2256 ; 152-160.

416 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

upon which this Opinion is founded is concerned with the case of a genus
based upon an erroneously determined species. Only for the first of such
types of case does the “‘summary ’’ lay down clearly the action to be taken.
Unlike the “‘ summary,” the title to this Opinion is quite general, thereby
indicating that the Commission intended that this Opinion should apply to
all the types of case in which a genus may be based upon an erroneously
determined species. It was undoubtedly to these other types of case that
the observation in the last sentence of the “summary,” that “ at the
present moment, it is difficult to lay down a general rule’’ was directed.
Twenty-one years have gone by since Opinion 65 was published by the
Commission and no further guidance has been issued to zoologists on this
subject. Throughout this period it has therefore been necessary for
systematists to deal with the various classes of case, other than the single
one expressly covered in the “summary ”’ of the above Opinion, as best
they could in the light of the general principles deducible from that Opinion.
Results obtained by such means are obviously liable to challenge until the
International Commission as the final judicial authority gives a clear and
unequivocal decision on the points of principle involved.

12. The lack of such a decision has not so far caused as much incon-
venience as might have been expected since in the case of many groups the
war of 1914-1918 materially delayed the detailed study of generic names in
the light of the present Code, which in 1914 was only nine years old.* In
recent years, however, a great deal of work has been done in this field and
a stage has been reached where in some groups almost the only genera, the
types of which are open to challenge, are genera, the names of which fall in
one or other of the classes covered by Opinion 65. It is manifest therefore
that if the Commission is to assist specialists to secure stability of nomen-
clature in their respective groups, one of their most urgent tasks is the
elucidation of those parts of Opinion 65 which in 1914 they left to be dealt
with by implication.

13. Most but not all of the problems involved will be settled automatically
by the International Commission when they give decisions on the names in
the Order Lepidoptera dealt with in Part 2 of the present paper. There
are seven principal classes of case involved, including the class (class
““C”’), on which a definitive ruling was given in the ‘“‘summary ” of Opinion
65, and the class (class “‘ A ’’) dealt with in the “‘ statement of the case ”’
upon which that Opinion is based. ‘The classes in question are the fol-
lowing :—

CLASS ‘‘ A ”’ :—a genus of which the type was designated by the original author but
there is doubt regarding the identity of the species so designated.

CLASS ‘‘ B”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author of
the genus and both that author and the author who subsequently designated the type
referred to the species under an erroneously determined name.

CLASS ‘‘C”’ :—a genus based upon certain specimens rather than upon a species.

CLASS “‘ D ”’ :—a genus of which the type was designated by the original author but
the species so designated was a “‘ composite species.”

CLASS ‘‘ E”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author
of the genus and the originally included species first designated as the type by a later
author was a “‘ composite species.”

CLASS “‘ F ”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author of
the genus and the species first designated as the type by a later author is a component
species of a ‘‘ composite species ”’ included in the genus by the original author of the genus.

CLASS ‘‘G”’ :—a genus of which the type was not designated by the original author
of the genus and there is doubt whether the species first designated as the type by a later
author is an originally included species.

* The present Code was adopted by the International Congress of
Zoology at Berlin in 1901. The editing of the texts was not completed
until 1904 and the report of the Comité de Rédaction, containing the text of
the Code adopted at Berlin, was not published until 1905. |

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 417

14. At this point it is necessary to refer briefly to two interpretations of
Opinion 65, each of which is based, as it seems to me, upon a complete
misunderstanding of the intention of the International Commission. These
interpretations are :—

(i) If the original author of a genus when designating its type or, if the type
is not so designated, the later author when selecting the type, uses a
wrongly determined trivial name for the species so designated or so
selected, the type of the genus is in all circumstances the species to
which properly belongs the specific trivial name erroneously so used.

Note :—In its most extreme form this interpretation claims that the type of a
genus is not a species but the name of a species.

(ii) The type of a genus is not and cannot be a species, since that is an
abstract conception quite inappropriate for this purpose. The type
of a genus, like the type of a species, must therefore be the actual
specimen from which the first published description of the genus was
drawn up. :

Note :—This argument implies that a given specimen might be the holotype
both of a species (see the second part of Section A of the Appendix to the
International Code) and of a genus. It implies also that, if the author of a
genus based his description upon two or more specimens, each of those specimens
would be a paratype of the genus, if at the same time he designated a holotype,
and in other cases would be a co-type of the genus.

15. Of these interpretations, interpretation (i) would be valid only if the
International Commission had declared in Opinion 65 that in all circum-
stances the type of.a genus is, and must remain, the species to which
properly belongs the specific trivial name cited at the time when the type of
the genus was designated by its author or selected by a subsequent author,
irrespective of any evidence that may be available regarding the intentions
of the author by whom the type was designated or selected as the case may
be. But quite clearly this interpretation is the opposite of the intention of
Opinion 65, for in the “summary ”’ of that Opinion the International
Commission expressly provided for the recognition of a mistake having been
made by the author in one class of case and clearly implied that in suitable
instances they were prepared to accord a similar recognition in other classes
of case. Except on this basis, no explanation is possible of the request
made in the “ summary ”’ that doubtful cases should be submitted “ with
full details ’’ to the Commission.

16. The origin of interpretation (ii) is no doubt to be found in the refer-
ence in the ‘“‘summary’”’ of Opinion 65 to the possibility that a genus might
be founded upon “ certain definite specimens rather than upon a species.”’
The context clearly shows however that these words were inserted in the
“summary ’’ not for the purpose of upholding, still less for enjoining, such
a method of founding a genus but for the purpose of condemning it and of
pointing out that, where the reviser of a genus encounters such a case, he must
regard the identity of the type as open to doubt until the question has been
referred to, and settled by, the International Commission. Like interpreta-
tion (i), interpretation (ii) must be rejected as fallacious.

17. The general question of what is the type of a genus is made perfectly
clear both in Article 30 of the International Code, the opening words of
which refer expressly to the “‘ type species of genera ’’ and in the addition to
Article 25 approved by the International Zoological Congress at its meeting
at Budapest in 1927, which in referring to the type of a genus, refers to the
‘““ type species ’’ and to nothing else. Moreover, as pointed out in paragraph
g above, the same proposition is stated with even greater precision in
Opimion 65 itself, for in the Resolution adopted by the Commission at
Monaco upon which that Opinion is founded and from which it derives its
authority, it is expressly laid down that “‘as a specimen is the type of a

418 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

species, So a species is the type of a genus.’”’ The contention involved in
interpretation (ii) that the type of a genus is or may be not a species but
a specimen is therefore wholly untenable.

18. The foregoing, however, is not the question with which Opinion 65 is
concerned. What the Commission had set themselves to consider—and
what they therefore dealt with—in that Opinion was an entirely different
problem and one concerned with procedure only. It was to define the
action which the reviser of a genus should take when he finds (or thinks that
he finds) evidence showing that that genus is based upon an erroneously
determined species. The action enjoined upon revisers in that Opinion
was that they should guide themselves by the preliminary assumption that
the author who designates the type of a genus correctly identified the species
so designated. The Commission went on however to qualify this injunction
by the proviso that, if in the opinion of the reviser there are grounds for
believing that the foregoing preliminary assumption is at variance with
the facts, he should submit the case, with full details, to the International
Commission.

19. Opinion 65 is imperfect not because its meaning is obscure but
because the wording of the ‘“‘summary’”’ and therefore the explicit, as
contrasted with the implicit, scope of that Opinion is narrower than the
title of the Opinion which (as already observed) is quite general and covers
the whole range of genera based upon erroneously determined species.
The position in regard to this Opinion is somewhat similar to that which has
arisen with regard to Opinion 11 (relating to the interpretation of Latreille’s
Considévations générales of 1810). The title of that Opinion indicated that
it was intended to define the extent to which Latreille designated genotypes
in that work, but the “‘ summary ’’ dealt only with part of the problems
involved and left the remainder to be inferred. To remedy this situation,
the Commission are now being asked to render an Opinion supplementary
to Opinion 11 dealing in express terms with those parts of the subject which
were not clearly defined in that Opinion. Both Opinion 11 and Opinion 65
give valuable guidance on the subjects with which they are respectively
concerned but neither Opinion covers the whole of the ground. The
difficulties in regard to Opinion 11 will be overcome if the Commission now
agree to render the proposed supplementary Opinion.2 So also will the
difficulties which have arisen in regard to Opinion 65 if in that case also the
Commission agree to render a supplementary Opinion dealing with those
parts of the subject which were not expressly covered when that Opinion
was drafted over twenty years ago.

20. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should
render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65 :—

(i) re-affirming the proposition laid down by the Commission at Monaco {
that “‘as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type
Ola Seuusins

(ii) declaring that an author when considering a genus should start with
the assumption that the original author of the genus correctly identi-
fied both the type species, if he designated a species as such, and also
the other species placed by him in that genus, and further that,
where the original author did not designate a type, the first author

t See paragraphs 9 and 10 above.

* The proposal to render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion I1 was
approved by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at
their meeting held at Lisbon on the afternoon of 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 1). : That decision has since been
embodied in Opinion 136 (see 1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 13-20).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. ‘OPINION 168. 419

to select one of the originally included species as the type also
correctly identified the species so selected ;

(iii) indicating that, where in the opinion of the reviser of a genus there
is evidence that either or both of the foregoing assumptions are at
variance with the facts, the identity of the type of the genus must
for the time being be regarded as doubtful and that accordingly a
reviser encountering such a case should submit it with full details
to the International Commission for decision.

21. These are the principles which appear to me to be inherent in Opinion
65 and which I have adopted in formulating for the consideration of the
International Commission the recommendations in regard to the genera in
the Order Lepidoptera set out in Part 2 of the present paper. It follows
therefore that, if the Commission approve those proposals, it will be because
they have accepted the foregoing interpretation of Opinion 65. Equally, if
the Commission approve this interpretation of that Opinion, they will find
no difficulty in approving the proposals submitted in regard to the individual
cases dealt with in Part 2.

22. The object of the International Commission in indicating in Opinion
65 that doubtful cases should be referred to them with full details can only
have been to secure absolute finality regarding the identity of the type of
any genus so submitted. If this object is to be secured, decisions in such
cases will need to be taken by the Commission not under their ordinary
powers but under the plenary powers conferred upon them by the Ninth
International Zoological Congress at Monaco in 1913, for it is only by this
means that their decision in such a matter can be placed beyond the reach
of subsequent dispute.

23. To sum up this part of the case, the object of the present application
is to request the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to
render an Opinion supplementary to Opinion 65, re-affirming the principle
quoted in sub-paragraph (i) of paragraph 20 above and prescribing the
method of procedure indicated in sub-paragraphs (ii) and (iii) of that
paragraph. ;

Il._THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3 For the numbers of the Opinions subsequently rendered by the Inter-

national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in regard to the generic
names here referred to, see footnote I.

420 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the Interna-
tional Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed
by the Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Con-
cilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

IIIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

5. The question of the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the
associated question of the types of the genera in the Order Lepido-
ptera (Class Insecta) dealt with in Commissioner Hemming’s
application were considered by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon on the
morning of Monday, 16th September 1935. In the course of the
discussion on the general principles involved, attention was drawn
to the following considerations : —

(a) The difficulties that had arisen in regard to the interpretation of
Opinion 65 were largely due to technical faults in that Opinion due to
the fact that the ‘“‘summary ”’ of that Opinion was drawn in much
narrower terms than those of the decision taken by the International
Commission when at Monaco in March 1913 they had agreed to
render an Opinion on this subject.

(b) The ‘“‘summary ”’ of Opinion 65 was restricted to the special case
where the author of a genus designated its type but in reality based
his genus upon certain definite specimens rather than on a species
and where it was later found that the specimens so used by the
author of the genus were not referable to the species designated by
that author as the type. On the other hand, the decision to render
this Opinion was in form a decision to accept, adopt, and publish the
report of a special Committee of Three Commissioners (the Hartert—
Allen—Hoyle Committee). The proposition in that report (and
therefore in the decision taken by the Commission at Monaco in
1913) was that “‘ as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is
the type of a genus.”’ For some (now unascertainable) reason this
proposition had been omitted from the “ summary ”’ of Opinion 65.
The result had been unfortunate, since this omission, coupled with
the reference in the Monaco decision and (consequently) in the
“summary ”’ to Opinion 65 to the Possibility of an author basing
a genus upon “ certain definite specimens,’’ had lent some apparent
support to the proposition that the type ot a genus was or might be
a Specimen rather than a species.

(c) Further, the decision taken at Monaco cowie a narrower field than
did the documents attached to the “ statement of the case” on
which the discussion leading up to that decision was based, for the
case so stated was not confined to the class of case where the mis-
identified species had been designated as the type by the original
author but was applicable also to the case where the misidentified
species became the type by being selected as such by a later author.
The title of the Opinion “‘ Case of a genus based upon erroneously
determined species ’’’ was wider even than the “ statement of the
case’’ and clearly covered every type of case in which a genus could
be based upon an erroneously determined species.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 421

(d) What was now required was an Opinion setting out in the clearest and
most unambiguous manner possible exactly what was the scope of
the decision intended to be conveyed by Opinion 65 and the procedure
that should be adopted by zoologists when confronted with cases
falling within the scope of that Opinion as so defined. Only by this
means would an end be put to the doubts and perplexities caused by
Opinion 65 in its present form.

6. In view of the fact that a decision on either part of the
present application would inevitably determine also the decision
to be taken on the other part, the International Commission
considered the two parts together. Their decision thereon was
as follows (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23) :—

(a) to re-affirm the decision taken at their Monaco Session in 1913 that
Article 30 of the International Code is to be interpreted as meaning
that, as a specimen is the type of a species, so a species is the type of
a genus; to interpret Opinion 65 as directing (1) that, in the absence
of evidence to the contrary, it is to be assumed that the original
author of a genus correctly identified the species assigned by him
thereto, whether the species in question was designated as the type of
the genus by that author or, no species having been so designated,
is a species selected as the type by a later author acting under Article
30(g) of the Code, and (ii) that in the latter event it is to be further
assumed that the later author correctly identified the species so
selected, but (111) that, where there is evidence that either or both of
these assumptions is at variance with the facts, the case should be
submitted with full details to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature, and (iv) that, pending their decision
thereon, the genus should be regarded as of doubtful status;

(b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the
undermentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in
question to be the species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus

(1) Lycaeides Hubner, [1819],4 Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser,
Verz. beh. Schmett. (5) : 69 [1779], Nom. Ins. 2 : 76
(the species misidentified as Papilio
argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Schiffer-
mutlem oc Denis. 1775.) and by
Hubner and later authors)
(2) Agriades Hubner, [1819], Papilio glandon Prunner, 1708,
Verz. bek. Schmett. (5): 68 Lepid. pedemont. : 76

and (the species misidentified as Papilio

Latiorina Tutt, 1900, Ent. orbitulus Prunner, 1798, by Esper,

Rec. 21 : 108 i 7o0lh, by) Eliioner, | and.) other
authors) ;

4 As explained in note (33) on page 68 of vol. 1 of Bull. zool. Nomencl.,
it was believed at the time of the Lisbon Session that signatures 5 to 15 of
Hiibner’s Verz. bek. Schmett. were published in 1823. With the discovery
and examination of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts, it has since been
ascertained that of these signatures nos. 5 to 11 were published in 1819
(see Opinion 150 in 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the Interna-
tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2%: 161-168). The dates
were corrected in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the International
Commission at their Lisbon Session as agreed upon at the Fifth Meeting of
the Commission at that Session (Conclusion 1(c)).

422 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Name of genus

(3) Polyommatus _ Latreille,
1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist.
nat. 24 (Tab.) : 185, 200

(4) Euchloé Hibner, [1819],
Verz. bek. Schmett. (6) : 94

(5) Princeps Hubner, [1807],
Samml. exot. Schmett. 1:
pl. [116]

and
Orpheides Hubner, [1819],
Verz. bek. Schmett. (6) : 86

(6) Carcharodus Hibner,
[1819], Verz. bek. Schmett.
(7) : 110

and
Spilothyrus Duponchel,
1835, 7m Godart, Hist. nat.
Lépid. France Suppl. 1

Type of genus

Papilio i1carus Rottemburg, 1775,
Naturforscher 6 : 21

(the species misidentified as Papilio
argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Latreille,
1804)

Euchloé ausonia Hiibner var. espe
Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep.:
506

(the species misidentified as Papilio
belia Linnaeus, 1767, by Stoll (zn
Cramer), and by Esper and Hiibner)
Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798],
Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205

(first described by Linnaeus in 1764
as Papilio demoleus, a name given
by him in 1758 to another species ;
Similarly misidentified by Hubner)
Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], Die
Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmeit. :
4 Dl 51 86.39 ee

(the species misidentified as Papilio
malvae Linnaeus, 1758, by Denis
and Schiffermtller, 1775, and by
Hubner and Duponchel)

(Diurnes) : 415
(c) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) and (b) above.®

7. At the meeting of the Commission held on Tuesday, 17th
September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17),
Commissioner Francis Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-
health of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been
charged with the duty of preparing the report to be submitted
by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology, reported that, in accordance with the request made by
the Commission on the previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3(b)), he had made a start with the drafting of the
Commission’s report; that he had made considerable progress in
spite of being hampered by the lack of standard works of reference ;
and that he did not doubt that he would be in a position to lay a
draft report before the Commission at their next meeting, though
in the time available it would be quite impracticable to prepare
the drafts of paragraphs relating to all the matters on which
decisions had been reached during the Lisbon Session of the
Commission. As agreed upon at the meeting referred to above
(Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(a)(iii)), he was there-

5 The above is an extract from the Official Record of Proceedings of the

International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in 1935 (see 1943,
Bull, zool. Nomencl. 1 : 23-25).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 423

fore concentrating upon those matters that appeared the more
important. Commissioner Hemming proposed that those matters
which it was found impossible to include in the report, owing to
the shortness of the time available, should be dealt with after the
‘Congress on the basis of the records in the Official Record of the
Proceedings of the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For
this purpose, Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters
unanimously agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be
treated in the same way, whether or not it was found possible to
include references to them in'the report to be submitted to the
Congress, and therefore that every such decision should be treated
as having been participated in by all the Commissioners and
Alternates present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and
approved, the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted
the proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both
to the selection of items to be included in their report to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure
to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with
which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal
in the report. :

8. The decisions involving suspension of the rules in the case
of the names dealt with in paragraph (b) of Conclusion 23 of the
Second Meeting of the Lisbon Session (quoted in paragraph 6
above) were embodied in paragraph 29 of the report which at their
meeting held on the morning of Wednesday, 18th September 1935,
the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6)
unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth International Con-
gress of Zoology. It was not found possible in the time available
to include in the report the decision recorded in paragraph (a)
of Conclusion 25, which was therefore left to be dealt with under
the procedure referred to in paragraph 7 above. The Com-
mission's report was unanimously approved by the Section on
Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the International Com-
mission held on the afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon
submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by
which it was unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium
Plenum held on Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of
the Congress.

g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session, the action
proposed in regard to the generic names specified in paragraph (b)
of Conclusion 23 of the Second Meeting of that Session was duly

424 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

advertised in 1936 in two or more of the journals specified in the
Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology at their meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, by which
the said International Congress conferred upon the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature plenary power to suspend
the rules as applied to any given case where, in the judgment of
the Commission, the strict application of the rules would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity.® In the period that
has elapsed since the advertisement in the said journals of the
proposed suspension of the rules in the case of the names specified
in paragraph (b) of Conclusion 23 of the znd Meeting of the Lisbon
Session of the International Commission, no communication of
any kind has been received by the International Commission
objecting to the suspension of the rules in the manner proposed.

10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon. Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

11. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session.

12. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion : —

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

13. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at
its meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological

® See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 425

Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted
by the Commission, and

WHEREAS the first portion of the Twenty Third Conclusion of
the Second Meeting of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at their Lisbon Session held in September 1935,
that is to say the portion set out in the summary to the present
Opimion, neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of
the rules nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered
by the Commission, while the second portion of the said Conclusion
does require such suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the’rules as applied to the second portion of the said
Twenty Third Conclusion has been given to two or more of the
journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth Inter-
national Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in
March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the decision recorded in the said
Twenty Third Conclusion and at that Session twelve (12) Members
of the Commission signified their concurrence therein either
personally or through Alternates ;

426 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL.
Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by virtue of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, the
present Opinion relating to the matters dealt with in the first
portion of the Twenty Third Conclusion of the Second Meeting of
the International Commission at their Session held at Lisbon in
September 1935, and direct that it be rendered and printed as.
Opinion Number One Hundred and Sixty Eight (Opimion 168)
of the said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this fifteenth day of July, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in
the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the I nternational Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 168. 427

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenelature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opimions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-40, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-170,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Ofimions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con-
taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

428 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE,

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to
30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the “ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

5 nas

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMIN G, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 39. Pp. 431-442.

OPINION 169

On the type of the genus Lycaeides Hubner,

[1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a

genus based upon an erroneously determined
species

LONDON :
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, $.W.7

1945

Price three shillings

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peres (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina),
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission),
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia). |
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.58.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

SONIA INoy, i, o
o

NOV 131 er
“Arrona Huse

OPINION 169.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS LYCAEIDES HUBNER, [1819]
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), A GENUS BASED
UPON AN ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES.

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio argyro-
gnomon Bergstrasser, [1779], is hereby designated as the type of
Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819] (Class Inseeta, Order Lepidoptera).

I.—_THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the
consideration of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion
65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based upon
erroneously determined species, with special reference to certain
genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). One of the
genera in question was Lycaeides Hubner, [1819], in the family
LYCAENIDAE. :

2. The portion of the foregoing paper ! relating to the generic
name Lycaeides Hiibner reads as follows :— |

(1) LYCAEIDES Hibner, [1819] 2

Hibner, [1819], Verz. bek. Schmett. (5) : 69
Scudder, 1872, 4th Ann. Rep. Peabody Acad. Sci. 1871 : 54
id., 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 208

25. Hiibner established this genus for four species, of which the first two
(nos. 670 and 671) have suffered from great confusion in their nomenclature.

1 The text of the first part of this paper (paragraphs 1-23) relating to the
interpretation of Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (see pp. 411-430
above). The portions of the second part relating to the types of the other
genera there discussed are quoted in Opinions 173 (Agriades Hubner), 175
(Polyommatus Latreille), 177 (Euchloé Hiibner), 179 (Princeps Hiibner), and
181 (Carchavodus Hiibner). :

2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written,
it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1 : 16-17) that pp.
65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823. That
date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examination of
Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct date is
1819 (see Opinion 150 published in 1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered
by the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2 : 161-168).
This correction has accordingly been made, wherever necessary, in the
extract from Commissioner Hemming’s application quoted in the present
Opinion.

434 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

The entries given by Hubner for the four nominal species placed by him in.
this genus are as follows :—

670. Lycaeides Argus Linn. Syst. Pap. 232. Hibn. Pap. 316-318.
671. L. Aegon Schiff. Verz. Pap. N. 15. Hiibn. Pap. 313-315.
672. L. Optilete Knoch, Beytr. I. Pap. 3. Hiibn. Pap. 310-312.
673. L. Cyparissus Hiibn. Pap. 654-657. Nanus Herbst. 312, 1, 2.

26. Hubner never designated types. In consequence, the types for all
his genera (other than the monotypical genera) require to be determined
under Article 30 of the Code. The first author to select a type for the
present genus was Scudder (1872) who designated Papilio argus Linnaeus,
1758. This selection was repeated by that author in his great “‘ Historical
Sketch of the Generic Names proposed for Butterflies ’’ published in 1875.

27. In view of the fact that Hiibner included Papilio argus Linnaeus in
the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, the first assumption to be made in accordance
with the directions given in Opinion 65 3 is that Hiibner correctly identified
Papilio avgus Linnaeus when he placed it in this genus. The second
assumption to be made in accordance with the same directions is that
Scudder in selecting that species as the type also correctly identified it.

28. The next stage is to determine whether either or both of these
assumptions are correct :—

(a) Huibner’s identification of Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758

29. The nomenclature of the species included by Hiibner in the genus
Lycaeides Hubner as Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758 (Hiibner’s species no.
670) is difficult to disentangle owing to the existence of two other very
similar palaearctic species, with which Papilio argus Linnaeus has frequently
been confused. The first of these species to be named (species no. 1) was
the one to which in 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 483) Linnaeus gave the name
Papilio avgus. This is the species which occurs in Great Britain where it is
known as the “ Silver-studded Blue.’’ Species no. 2, which does not occur
in Great Britain but is widely distributed in Continental Europe, was first
named Papilio idas (from a blue female) by Linnaeus in 1761 (Faun. svec.
(ed. 2) : 284). But that name is invalid, since it is a homonym of Papilio
idas Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 488). The first authors to give
structural differences distinguishing these two species from one another
were Schiffermiller & Denis (1775, Schmett. Wien. : 184). Most unfortun-
ately, however, those authors made the mistake of renaming species no. I,
to which they applied the new name Papilio aegon, and of identifying
species no. 2 with Papilio arvgus Linnaeus. This error was undetected for
nearly 100 years until in 1871 Kirby (Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 357) pointed
out that the name Papilio avgus Linnaeus belonged to species no. 1 and not
to species no. 2. Kirby therefore quite correctly adopted the name Papilio
avgus Linnaeus for species no. 1, to which he sank the name Papilio aegon
[Schiffermiller & Denis]4 as a synonym. Kirby realised that in these
circumstances it would be necessary to find a name for species no. 2, which
he had just deprived of the name Papilio argus Linnaeus, to which it had
never been entitled. Kirby therefore looked round the old literature and
applied to species no. 2 the name Papilio avgyrognomon Bergstrasser, [1779]

3 Since the passage here quoted was written, the International Com-
mission have confirmed and amplified the decision given in Opinion 65.
This later decision has been embodied in Opinion 168 (see pp. 411-430 above).

4 The Schmett. Wien. of Denis & Schiffermiller, which appeared in 1775
(a year before the issue of the same work under the title Verzeichniss der
Schmetterlinge der Wiener Gegend), was published anonymously. The
names of the authors are, therefore, here cited in square brackets.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 435

(Nom. Ins. 2: 76 pl. 46 figs. 1, 2 9), that being, as it seemed to him, the
oldest available name for that species.

30. The third of the very similar species referred to above was not
distinguished as such until in 1917 Chapman established its existence on
structural characters and applied to it the new name Lycaena aegus Chapman
(1917, 1m Oberthiir, Et. Lép. comp. 14 : 42-53 pl. 7 figs. 19-21 (genit.), pl. 8
figs. 22-24 (genit.), pl. 13 fig. 39 (genit.), pl. 19 fig. 57 (androconia), pl. 20
fig. 60). Later, it was discovered that names had already been applied to
other subspecies of species no. 3 by authors who had been under the im-
pression that they were dealing with subspecies of species no. 2. There is
even the possibility ° that the name Papilio argyrvognomon Bergstrasser
applies to the relatively scarce local species no. 3 and not to the commoner
and more widely distributed species, species no2. The two species are very
similar to one another and are undoubtedly congeneric; both occur in
Germany, France, and Switzerland. It must be accepted that Hubner,
when compiling the Verzeichniss bekannter Schmetilinge [sic], probably had
before him specimens of both species. Be this as it may, Hiibner’s species
no. 670 (Lycaeides argus) certainly covered both species no. 2 and species
no. 3, since (as explained above) it was not until 1917 that the distinction
between the two was recognised.

31. It will be seen from paragraphs 29 and 30 above :—

(1) that Hiibner correctly identified Papilio aegon [Schiffermiller &
Denis], 1775, with species no. 1 but was at fault in believing that
that name was the oldest available name for species no. I;

(11) that Hiibner misapplied the name Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758
(which is properly applicable to species no. 1), and applied it to
what can only be regarded as a composite of species no. 2 and
species no. 3.

(b) Scudder’s identification of Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758

32. As pointed out in paragraph 26 above, Scudder designated Papilio
avgus Linnaeus as the type of Lycaeides Hiibner. It is necessary therefore
to determine the identity of the species so designated by Scudder. Did he
correctly identify Papilio argus Linnaeus, 1758, with species no. I (i.e. did
he select as the type Hiibner’s species no. 671 (Lycaeides aegon))? Or did
he (like Hiibner) misidentify Papilio argus Linnaeus with species no. 2 (and
the then unidentified species, species no. 3) (i.e. did he select as the type
Hiubner’s species no. 670 (Papilio argus)) ?

33. This question would not be easy to answer with certainty if Scudder’s
paper of 1872 had been the only source of information available, but for-
tunately (as pointed out in paragraph 26 above) Scudder dealt with this
subject again in 1875. This latter paper provides a categorical answer to
this question. First, Scudder re-affirmed his action of 1872, thereby
showing that he was using the name Papilio argus Linnaeus in the same
sense as he had used it in his 1872 paper. Second, he used throughout the
1875 paper the nomenclature adopted in the (then tecently published) Syn.
Cat. diurn. Lep. of Kirby (1871). Third, he made a practice throughout
that paper of citing the name of each species as given by the author of each
genus, followed (where that name differed from that used for that species by
Kirby) by the name so used by Kirby. Fourth, in the case of Lycaeides

5 This possibility was at this time already under examination by Beuret,
who in the Part of Lambillionea for August-September 1935 published a
paper (Lambillionea 35 : 162-172) in which he definitely established that
the species described and figured (from a blue female) by Bergstrasser as
Papilio argyrognomon in 1779 was species no. 3 and not, as previously
universally supposed, species no. 2.

436 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
Hiibner, he gave as the type “‘argus (argyvognomon),’’ thereby signifying
that the species which he designated as the type was (i) the species to which
Hubner had applied incorrectly the name Papilio argus Linnaeus and (ii)
that the correct name was Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, the name
used for it by Kirby in 1871. In other words, Scudder intended to select
as the type of this genus not species no. 1 (the true Papilio argus Linnaeus)
but the species included by Hiibner in the genus Lycaeides Hiibner under
the name Papilio argus Linnaeus, the true name of which was (in his and
Kirby’s opinion) Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser.

(i) that, in the case of the genus Lycaeides Hiibner, Hiibner mis-
identified Papilio avgus Linnaeus and that the preliminary
assumption that his ‘‘ determination of the species is correct ’’
which is enjoined by Opinion 65,® is in this case unfounded;

(ii) that, when selecting Hiibner’s ‘“‘ Papilio argus Linnaeus ”’ as the
type of Lycaeides Hiibner, Scudder recognised that Hiibner had
made a mistake in identification and that Scudder intended the
type to be not the true Papilio avgus Linnaeus but the species
misidentified therewith by Hubner ;

(iii) that, in consequence of (i) above, this is a case which falls to be
dealt with under the second part of Opinion 65,° i.e. that it isa
case which should be submitted, ‘‘ with full details’’ to the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

35. If the wholly irrational course were followed of adopting as the type
of Lycaeides Hubner not the species intended by Hiibner when he made the
entry ‘“‘ Lycaeides Argus Linn.”’ but the species to which the name Papilio:
argus Linnaeus properly belongs, the result would be :—

(i) that Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], would become an objective
synonym of Plebeyus Kluk, 1802, Zwierz. Hist. nat. poez. gospod.
4; 89, of which also Papilio argus Linnaeus is the type;

(ii) that Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser and its allies, which (in
my view and that of most specialists who have studied the
subject) are generically distinct from Papilio argus Linnaeus and
which cannot therefore be referred to Plebeyus Kluk (of which
Papilio argus Linnaeus is the type) would be deprived of the
generic name Lycaeides Hiibner now commonly used for them;

(iii) that, as there is no other generic name available, a new name
would need to be proposed for Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser
and its allies.

(d) Action recommended

36. The consequences set out above would be an absurdly heavy price
to pay for the sake of maintaining the thesis that it must be assumed that »
an author’s determination of a species is correct, even where, as here, there
is the clearest evidence to the contrary. No one can doubt that it was to
meet this kind of case that the International Commission laid it down in
Opinion 65 ® that cases of doubt should be submitted to them “ with full
details.”

37. All these artificial difficulties would disappear if the International
Commission would render an Opinion declaring that the type of Lycaeides
Hubner is Papilio argyrognomon Bergstrasser, i.e. that the type of this

6 This proposition was later repeated and amplified in Opinion 168.
See footnote 3.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 437

genus is the species selected by Scudder as the type from among the
original species placed in this genus by Hubner under the erroneous deter-
mination Papilio avgus Linnaeus. This is the course which I now ask the
International Commission to take. For the reasons explained in paragraph
22 above,’ I consider that, in order to put an end to any possible contro-
versy, this action should be taken by the International Commission under
their ““ plenary powers.”’

IIl.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. The questions raised in Commissioner Hemming’s application
were considered by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935
during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The
International Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render
an Ofimion clarifying the meaning of Opinion 65 in the manner
proposed in the application. Having reached this conclusion on
the general question involved, the International Committee
examined the particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted
in the same paper. The International Committee considered
that, if (as they had agreed to recommend) the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to render an
Ofimion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner proposed in the
application, the only possible course as regards the genus Lycaezdes
Hubner, [1819], would be for the International Commission to
render an Opinion declaring that Papilio argyrognomon Berg-
strasser, [1779], to be its type. The International Committee
agreed therefore to recommend the International Commission to
proceed in this way under their plenary powers.

Il].—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth

7 The passage here referred to is quoted in the “statement of the case”’
embodied in Opinion 168 (see page 419 above).

8 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this
petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinion
168 (pp. 411-430 above).

438 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in-
volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of
some of which advertisements had not been published or, if
published, had not been published for the prescribed period, owing
to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or
for other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided
at their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the
Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to
such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases
in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic-
able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no
Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said
advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for
publication. The case of Lycaevdes Hiibner, [1819], was among
the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the
above procedure.

6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com-
mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard
to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).9 Having
thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the
Commission proceeded to consider the present and certain other
cases in the Order Lepidoptera and the resolutions in regard thereto
submitted by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the present case,
the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) 1°:—

® See footnote 8.

*© Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 23-25.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 439

(b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under-
mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question
to be the species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(1) Lycaeides Hiibner, Papilio argyvognomon Berg-
esroj),tt Verz. Oelza wan serasser, (it7 Zoi) Nom) 175.) 2 2/76
Schmeit. (5) : 69 (the species misidentified as Papilio

argus Linnaeus, 1758, by Schiffer-
muller) iéa, Denis 1775.) and) by,
Hubner and later authors)

7. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 29 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
6), the International Commission unanimously agreed to submit
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report
was unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at
Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 5
above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than unil-
formity.!* In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed

11 As explained on page 68 of vol. 1 of Bull. zool. Nomencl., it was believed
at the time of the Lisbon Session that this name was published in 1823.
For the reasons explained in footnote 2, the date has been corrected to
1819, the year in which it is now known that this name was published.

12 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

440 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opinion in the terms proposed.

g. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters and) Stejmecer |

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. ;

11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the above Ofimion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opimion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon
the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE VER onal
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to
any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the
said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in
the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission
was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the
rules; and

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 169. 441

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done at Aldeburgh in the County of Suffolk, this first day of
September, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy,
which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the I nternational Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

442 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41, Queen’s ©
Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenelature.

This journal has been established by the International Commission as
their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for the publication of :—
(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the International
Commission for deliberation and decision ;
(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the Secretary with,
zoologists on proposals published in the Bulletin under (a) above; and
(c) papers on nomenclatorial implications of developments in taxonomic
theory and practice.
The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1 have
now been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes concurrently,
namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have never
previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original issue of
which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (containing Declarations 1-9 and
Opinions I-11) have now been published. Further Parts will be published
shortly.

Vane 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising all the
decisions taken by the International Commission at their meeting at Lisbon
in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with Roman pagination) and Opinions
134-181 (with Arabic pagination). Part 52 will contain the index and
title page of the volume. Parts 1-40, containing Declarations 10-12 and
Opinions 134-170, have now been published. Further Parts will be
published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182, will
contain the Opinions adopted by the International Commission since their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing Opinions 182-192) have
now been published. Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-—
elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue ail the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up to
30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed ‘* Account payee. Coutts
& Co.”’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

liga

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 40. Pp. 443-458.

OPINION 170

Need for the suspension of the rules for Prosopis
Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno-
ptera) not at present established

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on |
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1945

Price four shillings

ssued 25th September, 1945

|
|
|

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President; Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (U;S.A.),.
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).

Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).

Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). .
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

AASQNIAN A Al Th Sh = /
An" ij fis
fa” TN
/2 df

NOV 131945

MA TIONAL Muse

OPINION 170.

NEED FOR THE SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR PRO-
SOPIS JURINE, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER HYMENO-
PTERA) NOT AT PRESENT ESTABLISHED.

SUMMARY.—Consideration has been given to a proposal sub-
mitted by the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
elature in favour of the use by the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenelature of their plenary powers to suppress the
names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, and Prosopis Fabricius, [1804—
1805], and to designate Sphex signata Panzer, [1798], as the type
of Prosopis Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera).
This proposal was approved by the International Commission at
their Session held at Lisbon in 1935, subject to its being advertised
for a period of one year before an Opinion was rendered thereon.
The representations received as the result of that advertisement
have elicited certain data and considerations that had not been
clearly brought out at the Commission’s Lisbon Session. In
consequence, it has been decided to defer a final decision on this
ease until after a thorough re-examination of all available evi-
dence. Zoologists who either favour, or are opposed to, the sus-
pension of the rules in this case are accordingly invited to communi-
cate with the Commission.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

~ As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James
Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order
Hymenoptera in all countries, the following petition signed by
Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymenopterists was sub-
mitted to the International Commission : —

THE CASE OF HYLAEUS VERSUS PROSOPIS

The genus Prosopis, type genus of the family of bees PROSOPIDAE, dates
from Jurine, 1801 ? (Panzer: Erlangen List). The type is Sphex signata

1 See paragraph 13(a) of the present Opinion.

2 As explained in paragraph 7 below, the International Commission at
Lisbon suppressed the “ Erlangen List ” (see Opinion 135, published in
1939, Opinions and Declarations vendered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature 2: 7-12). The suppression of the “ Erlangen
List ’ eliminated the name Pvosopis Jurine, 1801, published in it. The
next occasion on which the name Pyvosopis was published was in [1804—
1805], when it was published by Fabricius in his Syst. Piezat. : 293.

446 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Panzer by designation of Morice and Durrant, 1914. That species is
believed to be identical with bipunctata Fabr.

Hylaeus Fabr., 1793, has for its type, by designation of Latreille, 1810,
annulatus Fabr. = borealis Nylander.

The types of Prosopis and Hylaeus being congeneric, the two genera are
synonyms, and have always been so considered. But unfortunately
Prosopis came into much more general use than Hylaeus.

Leach in 1815 used Prosopis as type for a plural group name (PROSOPIDAE)
and Kirby, 1837, introduced the family termination, PROSOPIDAE. Viereck,
1916, was the first to use Hylaeus as the basis for a plural name, HYLAEIDAE.

In order to conserve the familiar generic and family names Pvosopis
and PROSOPIDAE, the undersigned request the Commission of Zoological
Nomenclature to take the following action :

(1) suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Hylaeus and

Prosopis ; ;
(2) permanently reject the name Hylaeus Fabr., 1783;
(3) validate Pvosopis Jurine, 1801 (or Jurine, 1807), type Sphex signata

Panzer ;

(4) add to the Official List of Generic Names 1n Zoology: Prosopis Jurine,
type Sphex signata Panzer, for the genus of bees ordinarily known

by that name.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-

mission :—

Cia Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert Dee atikenys H. Brauns t¢

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * H. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
Tr risen * jG ybetrem O. W. Richards
A. R. Park * R. Fouts Po Pe Bay,
EE oss = G. Arnold Vii S| Paibave
J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch Jj-4@, Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

G. T. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +
Rea Cushman A.C. Kinsey * O. Vogt T

BAY Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +
A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger 7

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams +

H. von Ihering ¢

A. von Schulthess

O. Schmiedeknecht ft

A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * N. N. Kuznezov-
H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky fT

H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * EB. Be lat

L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * Eee NVelictes

t Deceased.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I70. 447

iene SUBSEQUENT HISTORY) OF THE (CASE.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in January 1935, when it
was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted
at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the
Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year,
by which time the recommendations of the International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available.

4. This case was considered by the International Committee .
on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid
in the second week of September 1935, during the Sixth Interna-
tional Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the
International Committee formed the conclusion that it was
desirable that the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature should use their plenary powers in order to preserve
the long-established name Prosopis Jurine, with the family name
PROSOPIDAE, since, having regard to the literature as a whole,
confusion rather than uniformity was likely to result from the
supersession of these names by the names Hylaeus Fabricius and
HYLAEIDAE. The International Committee agreed therefore to
recommend that the name Hylaeus Fabricius should be suppressed.
At the same time the International Committee agreed to recom-
mend the suppression of the “ Erlangen List.’’3 In anticipation
of the acceptance of this latter recommendation by the Interna-
tional Commission, the International Committee agreed to submit
the further recommendation that the name Prosopis Fabricius,
[1804-1805], should be suppressed. The object of this supple-
mentary recommendation was to secure that, if Prosopis Jurine,
1801, was suppressed, as it would be if the “‘ Erlangen List ”’ was
suppressed,? the name Pyvosopis should continue to be attributed
to Jurine, through ranking from Prosopis Jurine, 1807, rather
than be attributed to Fabricius, through Prosopis Fabricius,
[1804-1805], as would otherwise be the case.

3 See footnote 2.

448 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

IIIl.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under
suspension of the rules”’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question
should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after the
conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should be
rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a period
of one year from the date on which the said advertisement was
despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The case
of the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-
1805], and Prosopis Jurine, 1807, was one of the cases in question
and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the
above procedure.

7. At the same meeting, the Commission agreed to use their
plenary powers to suppress the “Erlangen List’ (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 13).4 Accordingly, when on
the afternoon of the same day the Commission came to consider
the present case, they did so in the light of the recommendation
framed by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature on the assumption that the “ Erlangen List ’’ would
be suppressed. After careful consideration, the Commission

* See Opinion 135 (1939, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 2% 7-12).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 4409

decided that the course recommended by the International Com-
mittee was the one best calculated to deal with the problem here
presented. The Commission accordingly agreed (Lisbon Session,
3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) * :—

(b) under “‘ suspension of the rules”” permanently to reject the following
generic names :—

ary Sy ie). cell ey) @

(17) Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], Syst. Prezat. : 293

ee © © © @

(c) under “‘ suspension of the rules’”’ to set aside all type designations
for the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(20) Prosopis Jurine, 1807, Sphex signata Panzer, [1798],
Nouv. Méth. class. Hy- Faun. Ins. germ. (53) : Tab. 2
ménopt. : 218 i

(d) under “suspension of the rules” to place on the Official List of ,
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19 to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

8. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the
report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday,
18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology.

9g. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session,
5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) that Commissioner Karl Jordan
(President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the
Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such
arrangements and to take such action, as might appear to them to
be necessary or expedient :— |

(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ;
) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time
to time by the Commission ;
(i11) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their
Lisbon Session ;
) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-

mission; and generally
(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

® Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are
here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.
1 3 27-30.

450 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at
the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

Iz. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity.® In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
present case, the Commission have received three communications
objecting to the suspension of the rules in this case. These
communications are as follows :—

(a) Letter received from Dr. E. Gorton Linsley, Umiversity of
Califorma |

I have recently noticed the possibility of suspension of the Rules of
Nomenclature in the case of Prosopis Jurine, and would like to register my
protest at this change for the following reasons :—

(1) The priority of Hylaeus Fabr., 1793, over Prosopis Jurine, 1807, has
been clearly recognized and accepted by the majority of Hymenopterists
for the past seventeen years (beginning with Bridwell, 1919, Proc. Haw.
ent. Soc. 4: 123). The name is now in current use and a change would
necessitate the learning of another name for the group involved.

(2) The genus and family concerned are minor groups of Apoidea both
in number of species and in literature pertaining to them, hence there is
not enough at stake to warrant such a change.

(3) The only work which deals with this group from the world standpoint
is Meade-Waldo, 1923, Geneva Insectorum, fasc. 181, in which the species
are treated under Hylaeus. To restore Prosopis would greatly curtail the
value of this great work.

(4) The group is of no economic importance and does not appear in
economic literature, either as Prosopis or Hylaeus.

* § See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 451

(5) The name Pvosopis has long been used in botanical nomenclature,’
a fact which in at least one case has caused confusion between the bee and
the plant genus. (Vide Cockerell and Sumner, 1931, Amer. Mus. Novit.
490 : 1, re the treatment of Prosopis glandulosa (mesquite) as one of the
host bees of a group of parasitic Coleoptera).

(b) Letter received from Dr. Charles D. Muchener, Berkeley,
Califorma

‘In a number of journals I have noticed, under the title ‘‘ Notice of
Possible Suspension of the Rules of Nomenclature in Certain Cases ’’ that
Prosopis Jurine, 1807, may take the place of Hylaeus. The name Hylaeus
has been recognized as having priority over Prosopis by Meade-Waldo
(Geneva Insectorum) Scudder, and all (almost) authors since the publication
of Meade-Waldo’s work. Hence, to change back to Prosopis would mean
only a second confusion, which is absolutely unnecessary.

Prosopis is a small genus of economically unimportant bees. The change
in name would involve only a few specialists.

Furthermore, there is a genus of common western desert plants called
Pyrosopis.? I see no need: for increasing the number of cases in which
generic names in botany and zoology are the same.

(c) Document forwarded under cover of a letter dated 1st March 1937
by Dr. S. A. Rohwer 1n the name of the Committee on Nomen-
_clature of the Entomological Society of Washington

Prosopis Jurine, 1807, has as type Sphex signata Panz., by designation of
Morice & Durrant, 1914. The type of Hylaeus Fabr., 1793, is annulatus
F. by designation of Latreille, 1810. These types are congeneric and the
two genera therefore synonyms. They have always been considered so
but unfortunately both generic names have remained in use. However, to
suppress the older name Hylaeus and place Prosopis on the Official List,
under suspension of the rules, would overturn the nomenclature of the
most recent comprehensive treatment of the European species (Foerster,
1871), of the African species (Bridwell, 1919), of the species of the world
(Meade-Waldo, 1923) and is certain to produce confusion. It is urged that

G as principle of priority as established in the Rules be allowed to apply in
this case.

12. Immediately upon their receipt by the Commission, copies
of the document from which the passages quoted in paragraph II
have been extracted were communicated (November 1936 in the
case of documents (a) and (b) and April 1937 in the case of
document (c)) to each member of the Commission, but no member
of the Commission then expressed himself as being in agreement
with the representations contained therein, with the exception of
Commissioner Hemming who, as Secretary to the Commission,

* In reply to an inquiry by Commissioner Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the Commission, Mrs. M. L. Sprague replied (on 1st May 1944): “‘ The
botanical genus Prosopis Linnaeus, 1767, Mantissa Plant. (1) : 10 (Order
Rosales, Family Leguminosae, Subfamily Mimosoideae) consists of between
30 to 40 species. It occurs in the tropical and subtropical regions of Asia,
America and Africa.”’

452 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

made a note in the records of the Commission that the evidence
brought forward in the documents quoted in sections (a) and (b)
of paragraph 11 above regarding the confusion that might arise
from the use of the name Prosopis as a generic name in zoology
as well as in botany was a matter which required careful considera-
tion before a final decision was taken in this case.

13. The representations set out in paragraph Ir above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of
the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in
London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution
adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on
18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9 above).
The Plenary’ Conterence (Plenary Conference, (ust hiecmmer
Conclusion I0) :

(a) took note that the communications received as the result of the
advertisement in 1936, as prescribed by the International Com-
mission at their Lisbon Session (znd Meeting, Conclusion 9), of the
proposal to suspend the rules in the case of the names Hylaeus
Fabricius, 1793, Pvosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], and Prosopis
Jurine, 1807, had brought forward the following data and had
adduced the following considerations :—

(1) the name Prosopis was in use for a ‘“‘ common desert plant ’’ 8
and there was therefore a risk of confusion if the name Prosopis
was used both in zoology and botany; on at least one occasion
the use of this name in this way had already led to confusion
between the genus of bees and the plant genus;

(ii) in the most recent treatment of the genus from a world stand-
point (Meade-Waldo, 1923, Geneva Insectorwm 181) the name
Hylaeus Fabricius had been used and not the name Prosopis
Jurine ;

(b) agreed that the data and considerations summarised in (a) above had
not been clearly brought to the attention of the International Com-
mission when at Lisbon in 1935 they had agreed to suspend the rules
in the case of the names referred to above;

(c) recalled that the ‘“‘ Recommendation ”’ attached to Article 1 of the
International Code of Zoological Nomenclature deprecated the intro-
duction into zoology of generic names in use in botany ;

(d) agreed that, in view of (c) above, very strong grounds would need to
be advanced to justify the use of the plenary powers in a case such as
the present where the name proposed to be validated in zoology was
already in use as a generic name in botany;

(e) considered that, in view of (a) to (d) above, the whole case required
further consideration in the light of all available evidence before a
final decision was taken;

(f) agreed that the proper course for the present Conference in the dis-
charge of the duties entrusted to it by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
10) was to arrange as soon as possible for the issue of an Opinion :—

ST Dee MOOUMOLE) 7.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 453

(a)

(b)

nye)

(1) having the following as its “‘ summary ”’ :—

“ SUMMARY :—Consideration has been given to a proposal
submitted by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature in favour of the use by the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature of their plenary
powers to suppress the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793, and
Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], and to designate Sphex
signata Panzer, [1798], as the type of Prosopis Jurine, 1807
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). This proposal was
approved by the International Commission at their Session
held at Lisbon in 1935, subject to its being advertised for a
period of one year before an Opinion was rendered thereon.
The representations received as the result of that advertisement
have elicited certain data and considerations that had not
been clearly brought out at the Commission’s Lisbon Session.
In consequence, it has been decided to defer a final decision on
this case until after a thorough re-examination of all available
evidence. Zoologists who either favour, or are opposed to,
the suspension of the rules in this case are accordingly invited
to communicate with the Commission.

(2) setting out in the main body of the Opinion :—

(i) the petition in favour of the suspension of the rules in
this case; |

(ii) the subsequent history of this case, including the
recommendation in regard thereto submitted by the
International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature at Madrid in 1935 and the decisions taken by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
thereon (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2)
later in the same year;

(iii) the representations received as the result of the adver-
tisement of this case in 1936 in accordance with the
decision taken by the Commission at Lisbon (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9) ;

(iv) the present decision by the Plenary Conference.

The decisions :—

to suspend the By-Laws so far as might be necessary to
enable the International Commission to consider the present
and other cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure
had not been complied with, subject to the subsequent ad-
vertisement of the said cases for a period of not less than one
year before an Opinion was rendered thereon (paragraph 6) ;
subject to the proviso to (a) above, under “ suspension of
the rules’ to suppress the names Hylaeus Fabricius, 1793,
and Prosopis Fabricius, [1804-1805], and to designate
Spex signata Panzer, [1798], as the type of Prosopis Jurine,
1807, that name being thereupon added to the Official List
of Generic Names in Zoology (paragraph 7); and

to authorise the President of the Commission and the new
Secretary to the Commission, when elected, to make such

454 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

arrangements, and to take such other action, as might
appear to them necessary or expedient, to . . . give effect
to the decisions reached by the Commission at their Lisbon
Session . . . and generally to secure the effective continu-
ance of the work of the Commission (paragraph 9)

were agreed to by all the Commissioners and Alternates present at ,
the Lisbon Session of the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and! Stejmeven:

Alternates:—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

15. The foregoing decisions were dissented from by no Com-
missioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session.

16. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the above matters :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

17. At the time when the vote was taken on the above matter,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

.18. The decision that a further opportunity should be provided
for the consideration of the issues involved in the proposal that
the rules should be suspended for the purpose of validating the
name Prosopis Jurine, 1807, was taken on behalf of the Interna-
tional Commission by the President of the Commission and the
Secretary to the Commission, acting jointly in virtue of the powers
conferred upon them in that behalf by the twelve (12) Com-
missioners and Alternates (paragraph 14 above) present at the
Lisbon Session of the International Commission (Lisbon Session,
5th Meeting, Conclusion 10).

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I70. 455

plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
‘mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules would be required to give
valid force to an Ofimion embodying a decision in the sense
Tequested in the petition submitted in the present case; and

WHEREAS at their Lisbon Session the International Commission
unanimously agreed to suspend the rules for the purpose of
validating the name Pyvosopfis Jurine, 1807, provided that the
advertisement of the petition therefor in the manner prescribed in
the Resolution adopted by the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in 1913 elicited no data or
considerations which had not been clearly brought out at the
discussion of this case at the said Lisbon Session; and

WHEREAS at their Lisbon Session the International Commission
unanimously authorised the President of the Commission and the
Secretary to the Commission to take such action after the close
of that Session as might appear to them necessary or expedient to
give effect to the decisions reached at the said Session; and

WHEREAS the President of the Commission and the Secretary
to the Commission, acting in virtue of the powers so conferred
upon them, have agreed that the advertisement of the petition
submitted in this case has elicited data and considerations which
were not clearly brought out at the discussion of this case at the
Lisbon Session of the Commission and that a further opportunity
should, therefore, be provided for the consideration of the issues
involved in the said case before final action is taken in regard
thereto; and

WHEREAS, in consequence of the said conclusions, the President
of the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission, acting
jointly in virtue of the powers conferred upon them in that behalf
by the International Commission at their Lisbon Session, have
agreed on behalf of the said International Commission that an
Opimon should be rendered in the terms of the present Opinion ;

‘

456 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRaNcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in Virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Seventy (Opinion 170) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this fourth day of September, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 457

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-20 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-11) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume will be issued in 52 Parts, comprising
all the decisions taken by the International Commission at their
meeting at Lisbon in 1935, namely Declarations 10-12 (with
Roman pagination) and Opinions 134-181 (with Arabic pagina-
tion). Part 52 will contain the index and title page of the volume.
Parts 1-40, containing Declarations 10-12 and Opimions 134-170,
have now been published. Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts I-11 (con-
taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

458 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 41. Pp. 459-470.

OPINION 171

Suspension of the rules for Nymphidium
Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta, Order Lepido-
ptera)

ASK NIAN INS {>
ra (Kee mth
{= AN

fg
f

Ee Oe a os
DA t iveTYy

| Reece he: oe eal
ah f VA ry Nie) Br \' \ el
SIONAL MUSES

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946
Price three shillings
(All rights reserved)

7 =

Issued 22nd January, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

DreiNonan ke SORE (US s43)

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.5S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 171.

SUSPENSION OF THE RULES FOR NYMPHIDIUM FABRI-
CIUS, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules it is hereby declared
(i) that the name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera) (type : Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758) shall
not be rejected in favour of Limnas Hiibner, [1806] (type : Limnas
leucosia Hiibner, [1806]) ; (ii) that the name Limnas Hiibner is
to be treated as suppressed for all purposes ; and (ili) that the
name Nymphidium Fabricius is therefore valid. The name
Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, with the type indicated above, is
hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as
Name No. 614.

font) STAMP NT OR, THk CASE.

This case was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature in a letter dated 24th October 1934, in
which Commissioner Francis Hemming and Mr. N. D. Riley,
Keeper of the Department of Entomology, British Museum
(Natural History), jointly invited the Commission to render
Opimons in regard to this, and certain other, generic names in the
Order Lepidoptera. The passage in that letter relating to the
name Nymphidiwm Fabricius, 1807, reads as follows : —

(a) We recommend that the following names ! should be added by the

International Commission to the Official List of Generic Names. Our
reasons for so recommending are fully set out in the statements, the

terms of which we have jointly agreed, contained in Hemming’s
Generic Names of the Holarctic Butterflies on the pages noted below :—

O04 el, 0 ey 8

2. The following is an extract from the work referred to above
of the passage relating to this genus :—

1 The other generic names referred to in this letter were Euploea Fabricius,
1807, which has since been dealt with by the International Commission in
Opinion 163 (see pp. 335-346 above) and Euthalia Hubner, [1819], which
has since been dealt with in Opinion 167 (see pp. 399-410 above).

462 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

NYMPHIDIUM Fabricius

Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286
Westwood, 1851, 1” Doubleday, Gen. Diurn. Lep. (2a
Crotch, 1872, Cistula ent. 1 : 66

Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston 10 : 230

TYPE: Papiho caricae Linn., 1758

Fabricius said that there were twenty-eight species in this genus and
mentioned three by name. Westwood said that he considered the genus

‘well exemplified by carvicae and lamis,”’ and Crotch definitely selected
caricae Linn. (one of Fabricius’ species) as the type, basing his decision on
Westwood’s action. Scudder was not justified in trying to change the type
to telephus Fab. (= thelephus Cram.). The genus Nymphidium Fab. has no
holarctic species, but the name is included here in view of the fact that its
synonyms, Eulepis Billb. and Limnas Hibner,? have been widely (but
wrongly) used for palaearctic species.

Under a strict interpretation of the International Code, the name
Nymphidium Fab. should be sunk as a synonym of Limnuas Hiibner. There
are, however, very strong objections to such a course. These may be
summarised as follows :—

(a) The name Nymphidium Fab. has been universally applied to Papilio
cavicae Linn., 1758, and its congeners ever since its establishment by
Fabricius in 1807.

(b) The name Limnas Hubner has never been applied to these species,
except in the present case by Hiibner in his Sammlung exotischer
Schmetterlinge. On the contrary, following Hiibner’s own use in the
Tentamen (now rejected by Opinion 97 of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature), the name Limuas Hubner,
when used, has always been employed for a genus of DANAIDAE,
Papilio plexippus Linn., 1758, being regarded as its type.

(c) There is, however, a name Lymnas (Boisduval MS.) Blanchard, 1840
(im Brullé, Hist. nat. Anim. artic. (Orth.) 3: 464) which has been,
and still is, widely used for an entirely different group of RIODINIDAE.

(d) To sink the well-known and universally-used generic name Nymphi-
dium Fab. as a synonym of Limmnas Hubner, as is required by a
strict application of the rules of the International Code, would serve
no useful purpose whatever, but would, on the contrary, clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity.

3. Commissioner Hemming went on to say that, jointly with
Mr. N. D. Riley, he was submitting to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature a recommendation that, in
the exercise of the plenary power conferred upon them by the
International Zoological Congress, the Commission should as
soon as possible take the steps laid down by the Congress for the
promulgation of an Opinion to the following effect :—

2 On the following page (: 104) in the account of the name Limnas
Hubner, it was pointed out that pl. [29] in volume 1 of Hiibner’s Sammlung
exotischer Schmetterlinge (the place where this name was first published after
the Tentamen, which the Commission had rejected by Opinion 97) had
already been published by November 1806. It is now known to have been

published between August and November in that year (see Hemming,
1937, Hubner 1 : 401).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I71I. 463

The name Nymphidium Fab., 1807 (Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 286),
the type of which is Papilio cavricae Linn., 1758, is hereby added to the
Official List of Generic Names. The name Limnas Hiibner, [1806] (Samml.
exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [29]), is not to be substituted for Nymphidium Fab.,
notwithstanding the fact that it has one year’s priority over that name.

fee thn SUBSROURNT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

4. As a first step the Commission decided to invite the Interna-
tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature to report on
the present application. This case was accordingly considered by
the International Committee at their meeting held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Com-
mittee agreed to recommend the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature to take such steps as they might consider
necessary under their plenary powers to secure that Limnas
Hubner, [1806] (type: Limmnas leucosta Hubner, [1806]), should
not be substituted for Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807 (type:
Papilio caricae Linnaeus, 1758) as the name of the genus of the
Neotropical genus of RIODINIDAE commonly so called.

5. This and other recommendations adopted by the Interna-
tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their Madrid
meeting were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of
Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th
September 1935.

i THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

404 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Com-
mission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such
extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision; and
that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under
suspension of the rules ”’ in cases where the prescribed advertise-
ment procedure had not been complied with, the cases in question
should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable after
the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion should
be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry of a
period of one year from the date on which the said advertisement
was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication. The
case of the name Nympiidium Fabricius, 1807, was one of the
cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above
procedure.

7. This case was considered by the International Commission
later in the course of the meeting referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22), when it was agreed 3 :—

(a) to “‘ suspend the rules ”’ in the case of the following generic names :—

Cie Chinn eCioniec Wan et}

(g) to declare that the name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f.
Insektenk. (Illiger) 6: 286 (type: Papilo caricae Linnaeus, 1758,
Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) : 484) shall not be rejected in favour of Limnas
Hiibner, [1806] (Samml. exot. Schmeitt. 1: pl. [29]) (type: Limnas
leucosia Hubner, [1806], ibid.); that the name Limnas Hubner is to
be treated as suppressed for all purposes; and therefore that the
name Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, is valid;

(i) to add the generic names . . . Nymphidium Fabricius, 1807, .. .
to the Official List of Generic Names, with the types indicated above ;

(1) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (k) above.

8. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 28 of the
report * which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednesday,
18th September 1935, the Commission (Lisbon Session, 5th
Meeting, Conclusion 6) unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology by which it was

3 Only those portions of Conclusion 22 which refer to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 22, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 20-23.

4 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomenci. 1 : 60-61.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I7I. 405

unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held
on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of
the Congress.

g. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913,° by which the said International Congress con-
ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given
case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica-
tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise-
ment in the said journals of the possible suspension of the rules as
applied to the present case, no communication of any kind has
been addressed to the Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opinion in the terms proposed.

10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters, and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier wice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

ir. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter. The following five (5) Commissioners who were
not present at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did
not vote on the above Ofimion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.
12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,

there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

® See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations vendeved by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

466 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913, adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of
the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity,
provided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible
suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should be given
in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolution,
and provided that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in
favour of the proposed suspension of the rules ; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opimion
Number One Hundred and Seventy One (Opinion 171) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion. |

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I7I. 467

DonE at Aldeburgh in the County of Suffolk, this seventh day
of September Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single
copy, which shall remain deposited in the archives of the Interna-
tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

468 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and ~

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-21 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-12) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the
decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in
1935, 1s being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with
continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing Declara-
tions 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of Section
B, which will contain Opimions 161-181, Parts 31-45 (containing
Opinions 161-175) have now been published. The remaining
Parts of this volume are in the press and will be published as
soon as possible.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opimon 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the. International Commis-
sion since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (containing
Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further Parts will
be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I7I. 469

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

RICHARD CLAY AND

Buneay, S

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 42. Pp. 471-482.

OPINION 172

On the interpretation of Article 30 of the
International Code in relation to the designa-
tion, in abstracts and similar publications, of
the types of genera, the names of which were
published on, or before, 31st December 1930

<4 AgUN Aly hid,
ARAN §h dy
vs © 4
{ Wy
f

>
sth 0 a
ONAL MUS ree
LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946
Price three shillings

Issued 22nd January, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1952 |

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.5.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission : .
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 172.

ON THE INTERPRETATION OF ARTICLE 30 OF THE INTER-
NATIONAL CODE IN RELATION TO THE DESIGNATION, IN
ABSTRACTS AND SIMILAR PUBLICATIONS, OF THE TYPES
OF GENERA, THE NAMES OF WHICH WERE PUBLISHED ON,
OR BEFORE, 31ST DECEMBER 1930.

. SUMMARY.—It is undesirable that the types of genera should
be designated in Abstracts, Records, and similar publications.
Where, however, the type of a genus, the name of which was
published on, or before, 31st December 1930, is clearly designated
in such a publication, that designation must be accepted as being
within the scope of Article 30 of the Code.

ae SA hehe Ni OF Man. CAST:

This question was first brought to the attention of the Com-
mission by Mr. J. R. Le B. Tomlin, British Museum (Natural
History), in connexion with the generic name Conulinus von
Martens, 1895, NachrBl. disch. malakozool. Ges. 27: 180 (Class
Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora), the type of which had
been dealt with by the Commission in Opinion 86.1 Mr. Tomlin’s
letter, which was dated 16th June 1929, reads as follows :—

Referring to Opinion 86 as reported in Pr. Biol. Soc. Washington XX XIX,
p. 102, re the molluscan name Conulinus, I have only recently noticed that

in the Zool. Record for 1895, vol. XXXII, Mollusca p. 59, the Recorder,
B. B. Woodward, writes :

Conulinus, n.sect. of Buliminus, type B. ugandae n.sp., Martens, Nachrichtsbl. XX VII.
180.

As no such statement re type is made by v. Martens, I take this to be
a deliberate fixation of genotype by the Recorder.

tpt SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. This case was referred by Commissioner C. W. Stiles (Secre-
tary to the Commission) to Commissioner F. A. Bather, by whom
Opinion 86 had been drafted. Dr. Bather replied on 30th Septem-
ber 1929 as follows :—

1 Bor the effect of the present Opinion on the decision embodied in
Opinion 86, see Opinion 176 (p. 521 et seg. below).

474 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Vol. 32 of Zoological Record was published on 5 December 1896,? and
thus preceded Von Martens’ paper of 1897. It might therefore be claimed
that 6. ugandae should be regarded as genotype. I do not think that is
at all a necessary conclusion.

The Zoological Record, as its title implies, is a record of publications by
other writers; it is not an original work. Any criticisms or emendations
by the recorders are (or should be) definitely indicated as such, e.g. by
enclosure within square brackets [. . . ] or by the addition of initials. In
the present instance there is no indication that the recorder (B. B. Wood-
ward) was undertaking to do anything but record. My interpretation of his
statement is that, working probably under pressure as all recorders have to,
he assumed that B. ugandae was the genotype because it was immediately
associated with “‘ Conulinus n.”’ and preceded the two other species de-
scribed. That assumption was natural for a recorder who, in his haste,
overlooked the reference to B. conulus; but it was, as we know from Von
Martens 1897, an incorrect assumption.

I have consulted Mr. Woodward, who says (i litt., 17 July, 1929): ““ At
this distance of time it is not possible to recall what the compiler of the
Molluscan Section of the Zool. Rec. for 1895 had in his mind when he penned
the paragraph in question.”’

Mr. Woodward thinks that his printed sentence fixes the genotype; I
do not think so.

Since, however, there may be a difference of opinion on this question, I
suggest that, to avoid confusion and to validate the action of previous
authors (as opposed to recorders), the Commission be asked to re-affirm
Opinion 86, with this additional fact before it.

Further I suggest that the Commission assert, as a general principle,
that a statement in a report or record or historical narration is not to be
taken as an original contribution by the reporter, recorder, or historian
unless he has clearly indicated his responsibility for it.

3. Copies of Dr. Bather’s letter were communicated by Dr.
Stiles to the members of the Commission with a request for in-
formal suggestions as to the steps to be taken in regard to this
case. Replies were slow in coming in, and it was not until 1932
that Dr. Stiles was able to inform the Commission that comments
had been received from nine Commissioners, these comments
being to the following effect :—

(a) Commissioner Angel Cabrera agreed with Dr. Bather and
added :—

I would suggest that Bather’s suggestion about statements in records,
etc. must be adopted by the Commission as a general principle. We can
never praise the Zoological Record so much as it deserves; but, even so, it
is no more than a bibliographical record, and as such, it contains many
unfortunate slips.

2 The actual date of publication of this volume of the Zoological Record
is 4th not 5th December 1896, as is shown by the following extract from a
letter dated 19th August 1929 addressed to Mr. Tomlin by Mr. F. Martin
Duncan, Librarian, Zoological Society of London: “‘ In the Annual Report
of the Zoological Society for 1896, page 12, it is stated that Vol. XXXII of
the Zoological Record for 1895 was published on December 4th 1896.”

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172. 475

_(b) Commissioner John Stephenson agreed with Dr. Bather

and added :—

I would suggest, going further than Bather, that nothing in a report,
record, historical relation, ov abstract (e.g. Zool. Berichte, Biol. Abstracts,
the abstracts that appear or used to appear in Arch. Naturgesch.) be taken
as an original contribution, whether or not the writer indicates his responsi-
bility for it. These are not the places in which we look for original con-
tributions, nor in which we ought to have to look.

kawa, Pellegrin, Silvestri and Stone) replied that they agreed
with Dr. Bather, but none of these Commissioners indicated
whether this applied to both Dr. Bather’s suggestions or was
confined to the suggestion that Opinion 86 should be re-
affirmed.

4. In reporting to the Commission the comments received from
Commissioners on the suggestions put forward by Dr. Bather,
Dr. Stiles added the following statement of his own views :—

I hold an open mind and would suggest :—

(1)

(2)

It is not clear to me how far this view would lead us. It seems to
me, that so many complications might arise that the principles in-
volved should be very carefully considered—(possibly postponed for
special discussion when the Commission meets ?)

Is the Zoological Record “‘ publication’”’? Personally I have taken
it for granted that it is “‘ publication ”’ and that any statement made
therein had published status. Accordingly, if the Record said,
“ X-us n.g., type albus,’ I have without question considered this as
designation of type species to be as correct type (subject to the
provisions of Art. 30, rule (g) quoted below*) as is any other type
designation. The fact is known to me that various other zoologists
have followed this same plan.

If the types given in the Record are not to be accepted as type
designations, the question arises whether numerous similar entries,
(without further remarks) in tables of synonymy, are to be accepted
as type designations under Art. 30.

In many reviews, the reviewer has designated types. Admittedly,
a review is not the best place in which to designate the type species.
But it is not clear to me that this is not to be accepted as published.
Many types are designated (without additional remarks) in lists
(nomenclators) of genera.

I have a feeling that the author who designates type species is per-
forming an important public service. Would the acceptance of
Bather’s viewpoint tend to discourage authors from assuming this
responsibility ? '

* Rule (g) in Article 30 reads as follows :—

If an author, in publishing a genus with more than one valid species, fails
to designate (see (a)) or to indicate (see (b), (d)) its type, any subsequent author
may select the type, and such designation is not subject to change (Type by sub-
sequent designation). (See Opinions Nos. 6, 9, 10, 32, 56).

The meaning of the expression “select the type” is to be rigidly construed.
Mention of a species as an illustration or example of a genus does not constitute a
selection cf a type.

476 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Dr. Stiles concluded by stating that he intended to postpone
temporarily the formulation of a draft Opinion, pending further
suggestions from Commissioners.

5. No further suggestions were received by Dr. Stiles from
Commissioners and in consequence in February 1935 he recir-
culated to the members of the Commission the comments that he
had first communicated to them in 1932 (as recorded in paragraphs
3 and 4. above). On this occasion, Dr. Stiles added the suggestion
that this matter should be discussed at the meeting of the Com-
mission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year.

6. Comments were received from two Commissioners on this
further communication :—

(a) Commissioner James L. Peters wrote (4th March 1935) :—

Since the 1927 amendments to Article 25 became effective it does not
seem that the question of a subsequent type designation by a compiler in
the Zoological Record or similar bibliographic publication is a contingency
liable to arise any further, and as far as my own field is concerned, such
designations in the past are almost negligible. On the other hand a ruling
against such designations in a bibliographic publication might easily be
construed as invalidating type designations in such standard works as the
British Museum Catalogues, where after each generic name or synonym the
commonly accepted type species is listed.

(b) Commissioner Witmer Stone (reversing the view expressed
in 1931 3) wrote :—

I heartily agree with Peters’ statements as to type designations in the
Zoological Record or similar publications.

III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

7. At their meeting held at Lisbon on Tuesday, 17th September
1935, the Commission considered both the general question of the
availability under Article 30 of the Code of designations of the
types of genera, the names of which were published on or before
31st December 1930 (i.e. prior to the coming into operation of
the amendment of Article 25 adopted at Budapest in 1927), in
those cases where such type designations are published in
Abstracts, Records and similar publications. At the same time,
the Commission considered the bearing of this question on the
decision in regard to the type of genus Conulimus von’ Martens,

3 See paragraph 3(c) of the present Opinion (page 475 above).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172. 477

1895 (Class Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora) embodied in

Opinion 86. As regards the first of these questions, with which

alone the present Opinion is concerned, the Commission agreed

(Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion g) * :—

. (a) that it was undesirable 4 that the types of genera should be designated
for the first time in Abstracts, Records, and similar publications ;
but that, where the type of a genus was clearly designated in such a

publication, that designation must be accepted as being within the
scope of Article 30 of the International Code;

ee e e ee

8. Later in the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis
Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-health of Dr. C. W.
Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the
duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that,
in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the
previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he
had made a start with the drafting of the Commission’s report ;
that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered
by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not
doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before
the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time avail-
able it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of
paragraphs relating to all the matters on which decisions had been
reached during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed
upon at the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meet-
ing, Conclusion 3(a)(i1)), he was therefore concentrating upon
those matters that appeared to be the more important. Com-
missioner Hemming proposed that those matters which it was
found impossible to include in the report, owing to the shortness
of the time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on.
the basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of
the Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose,
Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously
agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the
same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include
references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress,

* Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, including the portion
relating to Conulinus von Martens, 1895, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 36.

The decision of the Commission in regard to the latter question has been
embodied in Opinion 176 (p. 521 é¢ seg. below).

478 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having
been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates
present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved,
the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the
proposals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both
to the selection of items to be included in their report to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure
to be adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with
which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal
in the report.

9g. The question dealt with in the present Ofimion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available,
to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It
is therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under
the procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in para-
graph 8 above.

10. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
eens; aimGl Susymeser.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vwice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirseh ye inneizee
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

11. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. The following five
(5) Commissioners, who were not present at Lisbon nor represented
thereat by Alternates, did not vote on the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.-AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on

Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving

the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172: 479

been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten (10)
Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes in
favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Opinion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Ofinion shall obtain the concurrence of
at least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the
same before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by
the Commission; and

WHEREAS the present Opinion, as set out in the summary thereof,
neither requires, in order to be valid, the suspension of the rules,
nor involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the
Commission; and

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Seventy Two (Opinion 172) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done at Aldeburgh in the County of Suffolk, this tenth day of
September, Nineteen Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy,
which shall remain deposited in the archives of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

480 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.
The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the
decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in
1935, is being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with
continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing Declara-
tions 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of Section B,
which will contain Opinions 161-181, Parts 31-45 (containing
Opinions 161-175) have now been published. The remaining.
Parts of this volume are in the press and will be published as
soon as possible.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opimions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con-
taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 172, 481

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 43. Pp. 483-494.

OPINION 173

On the type of the genus Agriades Hubner,
[1819], and its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera
based upon an erroneously determined species

AaWov iW 4 \ i ie Had ie ; ~~ "
VAN Lh oD Bs
FAN .) OF / 2%

/ r) a Oe a
/ ; v
| Re pon i 4S
bbe bd fy 8 PU }

\ f j

‘ Ng | i
Se Lf 7, * xt xh
ONAL MUSES
LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
. Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946
Price three shillings

Issued 22nd January, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr Norman ik; SOLE (ULSEAs)

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr HarcldyE VOKmsS (Urs A):

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
AI, Queen’s Gate, London, 5.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 173.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS AGRIADES HUBNER, [1819],
AND ITS SYNONYM LATIORINA TUTT, 1909 (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), GENERA BASED UPON AN ERRONE-
OUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES.

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio glandon
Prunner, 1798, is hereby designated as the type of Agriades Hubner,
[1819], and of its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909 (Class Insecta,
Order Lepidoptera).

1.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the
consideration of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion
65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based
upon erroneously determined species, with special reference to
certain genera in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera of the Order Lepido-
ptera (Class Insecta). One of the genera in question was Agrviades
Hubner, [1819], and its synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909, in the
family LYCAENIDAE.

2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to this genus
reads as follows 1 :—

(2) AGRIADES HUBNER, [1819]? AND LATIORINA TUTT, 1909

(A) AGRIADES HUBNER, [1819]

Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (5) : 68
Scudder, 1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Aris Sci., Boston 10 : 105

1 The text of the first part of this paper relating to the interpretation of
Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). The portions
of the second part relating to the types of the other genera discussed are
quoted in Opinions 169 (pp. 431-442 above) (Lycaeides Hiibner), 175 (pp.
509-520 above) (Polyommatus Latreille), 177 (Euchloé Hubner), 179 (Prin-
ceps Hiibner), and 181 (Carcharodus Hibner).

2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written,
it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 16-17) that
Ppp. 65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823.
That date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examination
of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct date
is 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Htibney 1: 517 and also Opinion 150, for
which see pp. 161-168 above). This correction has accordingly been made,
wherever necessary, in the extract from Commissioner Hemming’s applica-
tion quoted in the present paragraph.

486 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

38. Hiibner placed in this genus 14 species (as recognised by himself) but
did not designate a type. Of these species, the only one that is relevant
here is Hiibner’s species no. 660, since that species was selected as the type
of this genus by Scudder in 1875. Hubner’s entry in the Verzeichniss for
this species is as follows :—

660. A. Orbitulus Prun. Lepid. 158. Meleager Hiibn. Pap. 522-52 5 &
761.762.

39. Neither when Hubner published the name Agviades Hiibner or at
any subsequent time has there been the slightest doubt or misunderstanding
regarding the identity of the species which he there identified as Papilio
ovbitulus Prunner, 1798 (Lepid. pedemont. : 75).2 The species in question
has always been identified with the well-known high-alpine and boreal
species figured by Hiibner in the Sammlung euvopaischer Schmetierlinge as
Papilio meleagey. For convenience this species is here referred to as the
y Raroae Is iibie.

40. The difficulties now under consideration only arose in 1926 when
Verity (Ent. Rec. 38 : 105) established :—

(i) that Prunner had given the name Papilio orbitulus not to the
“ Arctic Blue’”’ but to another alpine “‘ Blue’”’ which may here be
called the ‘“‘ Green-underside Alpine Blue,” to which the name
Papilio pheretes Hiibner, [1805—1806],* is usually applied ;

(ii) that Prunner had given a name, Papilio glandon (ibid. : 76), to the
““ Arctic Blue’ and that this was the oldest available name for that
species and should therefore be adopted.

41. This discovery at once threw in doubt the type of the genus Agviades
Hubner, since that genus became thereby a genus based upon an erroneously
determined species. The effect of applying in this case the preliminary
assumption prescribed in Opinion 65 (namely that the author of the genus
correctly identified the species that he placed in it) would be as follows :—

(i) the type of Agviades Hubner would become the true Papilio orbitulus
Prunner, i.e. the ‘“‘ Green-underside Alpine Blue,’ notwithstanding
the fact :—

(a) that the true Papilio orbitulus Prunner was not even included
by Hubner in the genus Agviades but was placed by that
author in the preceding genus, Nomiades Hiibner, as species
no. 645 under the name Nomiades pheretes (Hubner) ;

(b) that, when designating Papilio orbitulus Prunner as the type
of Agvriades Hiibner, Scudder clearly indicated that he had in
mind the species which Hibner had identified as Papilio
ovbiiulus Prunner, 1.e;, the ~ Arctic Bluel (— apie
orbitulus Prunner, Esper e¢ auctt. mec Prunner) and not the
““Green-underside Alpine Blue’’ (= the true Papilio orbitulus
ATED) ;

eee figure “158” quoted by Hiibner as the reference for orbitulus in de
Prunner’s Lepid. pedemont. is not to the page in that work where this name
appears but to the serial number allotted to this species by de Prunner.

4 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written,
it was thought that the main (Ziefer) text of Hiibner’s Samml. europ.
Schmett. was all published in 1805, the date given on the title page. It
has since been ascertained (Hemming, 1937, Hiibuer 1 : 177-179) that this
text was published in parts and that the sheet comprising page 45 on which
the name Papilio pheretes Hibner first appeared was published in the
period November 1805—August 1806. This date has accordingly been
substituted for 1805, wherever necessary, in the extract from Commis-
sioner Hemming’s application quoted in the present paragraph.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 487

(ii) Papilio glandon Prunner (= Papilo orbitulus Prunner, Esper ez auctt.
mec Prunner) would need to be provided with a new generic name,
since the only other available name for it, Latiovina Tutt, is based
upon the same erroneously determined species and any decision on
Agriades Hiibner would necessarily apply also to Latiorina Tutt;

(iii) the name Albulina Tutt, 1909 (Ent. Rec. 21: 108) (type: Papilio
pheretes Hiibner, [1805—1806]), to which the true Papilio orbitulus
Prunner is normally referred, would become an objective synonym
of Agviades Hiibner, since the same species would in that case be
the type of each of these genera.

42. The consequences described above, including the confusion that
would certainly follow from the transfer of Agviades Hiibner to be the
generic name for Papilio orbitulus Prunner (= Papilio pheretes Hibner) in
place of being the name for the allied genus which comprises Papilio
glandon Prunner (= Papilio orvbitulus Prunner, Esper ez auctt. mec Prunner),
would be an absurdly heavy price to pay for the privilege of maintaining
the admittedly erroneous assumption that Hiibner correctly identified
Papilio orvbitulus Prunner when he cited that name in the list of species
included by him in his new genus Agviades Hiibner.

43. I accordingly recommend that the International Commission should
render an Opimion under their plenary powers declaring that Papilio
glandon Prunner, 1708, is the type of Agviades Hiibner, [1819], i.e. that the
type of this genus is the species which was intended by its original author,
which has always been accepted as such and which Scudder in his paper
published in 1875 intended so to select.

(B) LATIORINA TUTT, 1909
Tutt, 1900, Ent. Rec. 21 : 108

44. The position of this genus is indistinguishable from that of Agriades
Hubner, except that its type was designated by its original author (Tutt)
and not, as in the case of Agviades Hibner, selected by a later author
(Scudder). It should be noted however that Tutt made the further error
(a common one at that time) of attributing the name orvbitulus not to
Prunner (its true author) but to Esper by whom it was figured and described
under that name, not as a species named by himself but (quite correctly)
as having been so named by Prunner.

45. In these circumstances it is evident that whatever decision is taken
in regard to Agviades Hiibner must govern also Latiovina Tutt. I accord-
ingly recommend that the International Commission, acting under their
plenary powers, should designate Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798, as the
type of Latiorina Tutt. That genus will thereupon become de juve what it
has always been treated as being, namely an objective synonym of Agviades
Hubner.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

488 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

proposed.® Having reached this conclusion on the general
question involved, the International Committee examined the
particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same
paper. The International Committee considered that, if (as they
had just agreed to recommend) the International Commission
agreed to render an Opinion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner
proposed in the petition, the only possible course as regards
the genus Agviades Hiibner, [1819], and its synonym Lattorina
Tutt, 1909, would be for the International Commission to render
an Ofinion declaring Papilio glandon Prunner, 1798 (= Agriades
orbitulus Prunner, Hubner ec Prunner) to be the type of each of
these genera. The International Committee agreed therefore to
recommend the International Commission to proceed in this way
under their plenary powers. |

4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the International
_Committee at their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the
Sixth International Congress of Entomology at the Concilium
Plenum held at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

Il].—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

5 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this
petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see
Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 489

and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases
in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic-
able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no
Opimion should be rendered and published thereon until after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said
advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for
publication. The case of Agviades Hiibner, [1819] (and its
synonym Latiorina Tutt, 1909), was among the cases in question
and was accordingly dealt with under the above procedure.

6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com-
mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard
to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).6 Having
thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the
Commission proceeded to consider the present and certain other
cases in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) and the resolutions
in regard thereto submitted by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the
present case, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) :— ’”

(b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under-
mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question
to be the species indicated below :

Name of genus Type of genus
(2) Agriades Hiibner, [1819],® Papilio glandon Prunner, 17098,
Verz. bek. Schmett. (5) : 68 Lepid. pedemont. : 76
(the species misidentified as
Papilio orbitulus Prunner, 1798,
Latiorina Tutt, 1909, Ent. by Esper, [1799], by Hiibner and
rec. 21 : 108 other authors)

Cie) Le feces. e

and

& See footnote 5.

” Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 3 23-25.

8 At the time of the Session of the International Commission on Zoo-
logical Nomenclature held at Lisbon in 1935, it was still thought that this
name was first published in 1823. It has since been found that the portion
of Hiibner’s Verz. bek. Schmett. concerned was published in 1819 (see foot-
note 2). In accordance with the editorial arrangements agreed upon at
Lisbon, the date has been corrected to1819. (See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl,
1 : 64 and 68 (note (33)).)

490 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

7. The foregoing decisions weré embodied in paragraph 29 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
6), the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology. That report was unani-
mously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint
meeting with the International Commission held on the after-
noon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

8. In accordance with the decaion taken by the Commission at
Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 5
above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the
journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth Interna-
tional Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March
1913,’ by which the said International Congress conferred upon
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed
to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opinion in the terms proposed.

g. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wiece
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

9 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 491

agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter.

11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the
above Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon
the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.-AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any
given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict
application of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion
than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of
the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case
should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said
Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was
unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules;
and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opimion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

4y2 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Seventy Three (Opinion 173) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this first day of October, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 173. 493

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the

International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1

have now been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Ofinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-21 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opinions I-12) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the
decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in
1935, 1s being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with
continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing Declara-
tions 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of Section
B, which will contain Opinions 161-181, Parts 31-45 (containing
Opinions 161-175) have now been published. The remaining
Parts of this volume are in the press and will be published as soon
as possible.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con-
taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

494 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

Contributions should be sent to the International Commission at
their Publications Office, 44, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7, and
made payable to the ‘ International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature or Order ’’ and erossed ‘‘ Account payee. Coutts
& Co.’’.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 44. Pp. 495-508.

OPINION 174
On the status of the names Ceraphron Panzer,

[1805], and Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

.
“ Ay cy /
x. y if i \ j LA a9 J
<i U, q INNA 5 F rc EV
ie LL AL Must

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7
1946

Price three shillings

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission). -
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Drs Harold Ee VOKES (ULS-A.):

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal addvess of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

:
|
|
|

/ t/

OPINION 174.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES CERAPHRON PANZER,
[1805], AND CERAPHRON JURINE, 1807 (CLASS INSECTA,
ORDER HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], is suppressed ; (ii) all type designations
for Ceraphron Jurine, 1807, made prior to the date of this Opinion,
are set aside; and (iii) Ceraphron sulcatus Jurine, 1807, is hereby
designated as the type of Ceraphron Jurine, 1807 (Class Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera). The name Ceraphron Jurine, 1807, with
the type indicated above, is hereby added to the Official List of
Generic Names in Zoology as Name No. 615.

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James
Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order
Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in all countries, the following
petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymeno-
pterists was submitted to the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature :— !

The case of CERAPHRON versus CALLICERAS

Cevaphron Jurine, 1807, was established for C. covnutus Jurine and C.
sulcatus Jurine. The former is considered a synonym of Sparasion frontalis
Latreille, a well known European species designated type of Sparasion
(family SCELIONIDAE) by Latreille, 1810.

But Cevaphron had previously been used by Panzer (1805, Fn. insect.
Germ. 9 : 97 pl. 16) 1 in association with the species Cevaphron formicarius
Pz. (monotype) which belongs to the family BETHYLIDAE.? Kieffer has
pointed out that the next available name for Cevaphron Jurine, 1807 (nec
Panzer, 1805) is Callicervas Nees, 1834,° and has correspondingly changed the
family name CERAPHRONIDAE tO CALLICERATIDAE. There exists a genus
of flies called Calliceva (SyRPHIDAE) which Rondani, 1856, made type of a
subfamily CALLICERINAE, and MHandlirsch, 1925, adopts the corrected
spelling CALLICERATINAE. There exists a genus of beetles called Callicerus

_(STAPHYLINIDAE) which Jacobs, 1907, made type of a group that he called

CALLICERINA.

1 The correct reference is Panzer, [1805], Faun. Ins. germ. (97) : tab. 16.
The date, being only ascertainable from external sources, should be cited
in square brackets.

* See Opinion 153 (pp. 197-208 above).

3 Calliceras Nees v. Esenbeck, 1834, Hymenopt. Ichn. aff. 2 : 278.

498 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

In view of the undesirability of changing the established family name
CERAPHRONIDAE to CALLICERATIDAE, and of the added confusion that
would occur from the existence of an identical subfamily name in Diptera
and an identical group name potential in Coleoptera, the undersigned
respectfully petition the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to take the following action :

(1) to suspend the rules in the case of the genera Cevaphron Panzer,
1805,* and Cevaphron Jurine, 1807;

) to permanently reject Cevaphyron Panzer, 1805 (Faun. Insect. German.
O07. pl nore

) to validate Cevaphron Jurine, 1807, type Cevaphron sulcatus Jurine;

) to place on the Official List of Generic Names Cevaphron Jurine, 1807,

type C. sulcatus Jurine, for the genus of parasitic wasps ordinarily
passing under that name.

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-

mission :—

C. 1. Brues KR. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert ae Alitikenys H. Brauns {

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
Ang leaky Jerokstoym, Gas errem O. W. Richards
AM se. JEeuele R. Fouts EE Babin

Ei El Rossi G. Arnold V2 Seeeare

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein

G. T. Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * AY Cy kinsey, = O. Vogt 7

E. A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl f
A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger 7

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams +

H. von Ihering ¢

A. von Schulthess

O. Schmiedeknecht +

A. C. W. Wagner ky be bensomns N. N. Kuznezov-
H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky fT

H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * F. E. Lutz

L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

* In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied
the points involved in the particular case.
{+ Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not included in his reply.

t Deceased.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. This case circulated to the members of the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in January 1935, when
it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases submitted
at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the
Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year,

4 See footnote I.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 174. 499

by which time the recommendations of the International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available.

4. This case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935 during the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology. After careful consideration, the Inter-
national Committee came to the conclusion that the chief feature
of importance in this case was not whether in the Order Hymeno-
ptera the generic name Cevaphron Jurine, 1807, and the family
name CERAPHRONIDAE should be preserved in preference to the
generic name Calliceras Nees v. Esenbeck, 1834, and the family
name CALLICERATIDAE but the fact that if the latter course were
followed, there would be subfamilies in the Hymenoptera and the
Diptera with identical names. The International Committee
were of the opinion, which they did not doubt- would be shared by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, that,
in judging whether it was desirable that the International Com-
mission should use its plenary powers to suppress or to validate a
given generic name, it was not sufficient, in the case of the names
of genera that were the types of families or subfamilies, to con-
sider only whether the strict application of the rules would be
likely to lead to greater confusion than uniformity in the par-
ticular group concerned; in such a case it was necessary to con-
sider also whether the use of identical names for families or sub-
families in two or more groups would be likely to result in greater
confusion than uniformity in the study of, and teaching of, some
larger category—in this case the Class Insecta. The Interna-
tional Committee considered that it would be highly objectionable
to have identical family or subfamily names in two orders of
insects, and they accordingly decided to recommend the Interna-
tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to approve the
petition submitted in this case, that is to say to suppress the
generic name Cevaphron Panzer, [1805], and to place Ceraphron
Jurine, 1807 (type: Cevaphron sulcatus Jurine, 1807) on the
Oficial List of Generic Names in Zoology.

5. [he above and other recommendations adopted by the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their
meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth Interna-
tional Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at
Madrid on 12th September 1935.

500 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

IlI.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases in-
volving proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of
some of which advertisements had not been published or, if
published, had not been published for the prescribed period,
owing to the illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Com-
mission, or for other causes. In these circumstances, the Com-
mission decided at their meeting held on the morning of Monday,
16th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
g), that immediate consideration should be given to all cases
submitted to the Commission that, in their judgment, had reached
the stage at which a decision could properly be taken; that the
By-Laws of the Commission should be suspended during the
Lisbon Session to such extent as might be necessary to give effect
to this decision; and that, in so far as this procedure involved
taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the rules’ in cases where
the prescribed advertisement procedure had not been complied
with, the cases in question should be duly advertised as soon as
might be practicable after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress
and that no Opinion should be rendered and published thereon
until after the expiry of a period of one year from the date on
which the said advertisement was despatched to the prescribed
journals for publication. The case of Ceraphron Panzer, [1805],
and Ceraphron Jurine, 1807, was one of the cases in question and
was accordingly dealt with by the Commission under the above
procedure.

7. This case was considered by the International Commission
at their meeting held on the afternoon of Monday, 16th September —
1935 (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2), when the
Commission agreed ® :— ,

(b) under “ suspension of the rules ”’ permanently to reject the following
generic names :—

5 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 27-30. ;

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 174. 501

(c) under “‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for
the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(30) Cevaphron Jurine, 1807, Cevaphron sulcatus Jurine,
Nouv. Méth. class. Hy- 1807, Nouv. Méth. class. Hy-
ménopt. : 303 ménopt. : 303

(d) under “‘ suspension of the rules’”’ to place on the Official List o,
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

8. The foregoing decision was embodied in paragraph 27 of the
report ® which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology.
g. At the same meeting, the Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10%) that Commissioner Karl
Jordan (President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the
Commission, when elected, should be authorised to make such
arrangements and to take such other action, as might appear to
them to be necessary or expedient :—
(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ;

(ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time
to time by the Commission ;

) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their
Lisbon Session ;

) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-
mission; and generally
)

(iii

(iv

10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved
by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the
International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day.
It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology, by which it was unanimously approved and adopted
at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

II. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph

to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

6 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 59-60.
7 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 48.

502 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution * adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con-
ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given
case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica-
tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise-
ment in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules
in the case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, one
communication only has been addressed to the Commission
raising objection to the suspension of the rules in this case. This
communication, which was dated 1st March 1937, and bore the
signature of Dr. S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission
in the name of the Committee on Nomenclature of the En-
tomological Society of Washington. The passage in that docu-
ment relating to the present case reads as follows :—

The case of Cevaphron Jurine, 1807

It has been proposed permanently to reject Cevaphron Panz., 1805 (type,
C. formicarius Panz.) and to validate by placing on the Official List of
Generic Names, Cevaphyron Jurine, 1807 (type, C. sulcatus Jur.). The
next available name for Cevaphron Jurine being Calliceras Nees, 1834, this
was adopted by Kieffer (1914) in his monograph of the family and has been
used by most workers since then. It would be exceedingly confusing to
overturn the nomenclature of the CALLICERATIDAE at this late date by
validating Cevaphron Jurine under suspension of the rules.

12. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission, copies of
the document from which the above is an extract were communt-
cated (April 1937) to each member of the Commission, but since
that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself as
being in agreement with the representations contained therein.
On the other hand, two Commissioners who are also members of the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature (Jordan
and Hemming) noted in regard to these representations that they
did not deal with the principal ground on which the International
Committee had recommended, and the International Commission
had-approved, the suspension of the rules in this case.

13. The representations set out in paragraph 11 above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of

8 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the

International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).
9 See paragraph 4 above.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 174. 503

the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened
in London on roth June 1939 under the authority of the Resolu-
tion adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon
on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9
Bwevee ine) Plenary Conterence. (Plenary Conference, 1st
Meeting, Conclusion g) 1° :—

(b) examined the communications that had been ‘received during the
prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :—

(v) Ceraphron Jurine, 1807
from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society
of Washington

(c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to
in (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Com-
mission immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Com-
mission had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of the
representations contained therein ;

(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought
forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in
favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them
by the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in
resolutions adopted during the Sixth International Congress of
Entomology at Madrid in the same year ;

14. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)

Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
bradley vice Stone: Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt wiee
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

10 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case

are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 76-77.

504 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

15. The present Of:n10n was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that
Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on that
occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated dis-
agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter.

16. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

17. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OR ENTON?

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held in Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case,
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said Resolu-
tion, and provided that the vote in the Commission was unani-
mously in favour of the proposed suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 174. 505

Now, THEREFORE,

I, Francis HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Seventy Four (Ofimion 174) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Ofimion.

DonE in London, this tenth day of October, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited in
the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

506 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenelature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume I
have now been published. further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenelature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the
decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in
1935, is being published in two Sections (Sections A and B)
with continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing
Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, is now complete. Of
Section B, which will contain Ofimions 161-181, Parts 31-45
(containing Opinions 161-175) have now been published. The
remaining Parts of this volume are in the press and will be
published as soon as possible. |

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Ofinion 182,
will contain the Opinions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con-
taining Opimions 182-192) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 174. 507

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

dt?)

“Ad

a al if
go
oP” tt
Neel, \
| on f ¢

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by ?
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 45. Pp. 509-520.

OPINION 175

On the type of the genus Polyommatus Latreille,
1804 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a genus
based upon an erroneously determined species

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
: Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946
Price three shillings

Issued 22nd January, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

ee
Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A,).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Monsieur le Docteur Jacques PELLEGRIN (France).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr Harold Bo VOKES) (UsS.A43):

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
At, .Oueen.s Gate, wondonyis Wer 7-

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 175.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS POLYOMMATUS LATREILLE,
1804 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), A GENUS
BASED UPON AN ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES.

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio icarus
Rottemburg, 1775, is hereby designated as the type of Polyommatus
Latreille, 1804 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).

if bal SiR NEN) (OF HE CASE.

In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the
consideration of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion
65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based
upon erroneously determined species, with special reference to
certain genera in the Sub-Order Rhopalocera of the Order Lepido-
ptera (Class Insecta). One of the genera in question was Polyom-
matus Latreille, 1804, in the family LYCAENIDAE.

2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to this genus
reads as follows :— } .

(3) POLYOMMATUS LATREILLE, 1804

Latreille, 1804, Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24 (Tab.) : 185, 200
id., 1805, 7m Sonnini’s Buffon (Ins.) 14: 116
id., 1817, in Cuvier’s Régne anim. 8 : 553

46. When in 1804 Latreille first published this name he gave a short
diagnosis on p. 185 but cited no species. On p. 200, in a comparison of his
system with that of Fabricius, he gave what he called ‘‘ avgus Fab.’’.
The genus Polyommatus Latreille is thus a monotypical genus and its type
icy argus Bab.’ .

47. Fabricius never named an insect Papilio avgus and whenever he
used that name he made it clear that he was referring to the species so
named by Linnaeus in 1758. ‘The first occasion on which he used this
name was in 1775 (Syst. Ent. : 525), the year in which Schiffermiiller and
Denis first detected the existence of the second very similar species, to
which they inadvertently (and wrongly) transferred the name Papilio

* The text of the first part of this paper relating to the interpretation of
Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). The por-
tions of the second part relating to the types of the other genera discussed
are quoted in Opinions 169 (Lycaeides Hiibner) (pp. 431-442 above), nee)
(Agriades Hubner) (pp. 483-494 above), 177 (Euchloé Hiibner), 179 (Princeps

Hubner), and 181 (Carcharodus Hiibner).

512 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

avgus Linnaeus (see paragraph 29 above).? It must be concluded therefore
that on this occasion Fabricius used the name Papilio argus Linnaeus in
the sense intended by Linnaeus and that, like Linnaeus in 1758, he did not
realise the existence of more than one species and confused examples of
both under the same name. In Fabricius’s later works the name Papilio
argus Linnaeus was used in much the same way. If therefore it were to
be assumed—as, under Opinion 65, it must be assumed in the first instance
—that Fabricius correctly identified Papilio avgus Linnaeus, 1758, and
therefore that the species so identified, being the sole species included by
Latreille in the genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, was automatically the
type of that genus, then the name Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, would be.
an objective synonym of Plebejus Kluk, 1802, of which also that species is
the type.

48. It is quite clear however from Latreille’s subsequent writings that
the true Papilio argus Linnaeus was not the species to which Latreille
intended to-refer when in 1804 he cited “‘ aygus Fab.’’ as the sole species
belonging to the genus Polyommatus Latreille. Thus, in 1805 (the year
following the publication of the name Polyommatus Latreille) and again
in 1817 Watreille gave for what he called) aveus the melenencem ale:
argus bleu, pl. 38, fig. 80.’ The reference is to Ernst & Engramelle’s
Papillons d’ Europe and the figure cited represents the common European
species Papilio icavus Rottemburg, 1775. In 1817 Latreille added a
reference to figs. 292—294 [on pl. Pap. 60] of Hiibner’s Sammlung euro-
padischer Schmetterlinge, which also represent that species. There is
therefore no doubt that, when Latreille established the genus Polyom-
matus and placed in it the species which he called “‘ avgus Fab.,’”’ his
intention was to cite the species, the oldest available name for which is
Papilio icarus Rottemburg. This is the sense in which the name Polyom-
matus Latreille has been universally used for many years.

49. There is clearly no sense or justification for interpreting the Code in
such a way as (a) to deprive Papilio icavus Rottemburg and its numerous
congeners of the generic name Polyommatus Latreille and (b) to sink that
well-known and universally used name as a synonym of Plebejus Kluk,
merely for the sake of maintaining the patently unwarrantable assumption
that Latreille correctly identified Papilio avgus Fabricius (and therefore
also Papilio argus Linnaeus) at the time when he founded the genus
Polyommatus Latreille.

50. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to render an Opinion under their plenary powers declaring
that the type of Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, is Papilio 1carus Rottem-
burg, 1775, Naturforscher 6:21, i.e. the species to which Latreille was
certainly referring when he founded that genus.

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CAS:

* For the passage here referred to, see Opinion 169 (page 434 above).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 175. 513

proposed.2 Having reached this conclusion on the general
question involved, the International Committee examined the
particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same
paper. The International Committee considered that, if (as they
had just agreed to recommend) the International Commission
agreed to render an Ofimion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner
proposed in the petition, the only possible course as regards the
genus Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, would be for the International
Commission to render an Opinion declaring Papilio icarus Rottem-
burg, 1775, to be its type. The International Committee agreed
therefore to recommend the International Commission to proceed
in this way under their plenary powers.

III.—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION.

5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-

clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth

International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published,
had not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the
illness of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for
other causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at
their meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September
1935 (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the
Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to
such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“ under suspension of the rules”’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases

3 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this
petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see
Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above).

d+”)

514 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic-
able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no
Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said
advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for
publication. The case of Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, was
among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under
the above procedure.

6. At the same meeting as that referred to’ above w(Misbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com-
mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard
to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined
species (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).4
Having thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved,
the Commission proceeded to consider the present and certain
other cases in the Order Lepidoptera and the resolutions in regard
thereto submitted by the International Committee on Entomolo-
gical Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the present
case, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd
Meeting, Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) :— ®

(b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the

undermentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in
question to be the species indicated below :

Name of genus Type of genus
(3) Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, Papilio 1carus Rottemburg, 1775,
Nouv. Dict. Hist. nat. 24 Naturforscher 6 : 21
(Tab.) : 185, 200 (the species misidentified as
Papilio avgus Linnaeus, 1758,
by Latreille, 1804)

Oi) Ken Sey elie ine

4 See footnote 3.

5 Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case

are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 23-25.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 175. 515

afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was unani-
mously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on
the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of
the Congress.

8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at
Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 5
above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals named in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913,® by which the said International Congress con-
ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given
case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica-
tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise-
ment in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules
in the present case, no communication of any kind has been
addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue
of an Opinion in the terms proposed.

9. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger. es

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
ibna@ley) vice) stone; Beier vice Elandlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain ; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

§ See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

516 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

1z. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to
any given cases where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the
said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified
in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Com-
mission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of
the rules; and ;

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the rules as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution
adopted by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 175. 517

Number One Hundred and Seventy Five (Opinion 175) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twelfth day of October, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

518 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal has been established by the International Com-
mission as their Official Organ in order to provide a medium for
the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

The Bulletin was established in 1943. Seven Parts of volume 1
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press.

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). Parts 1-21 (contain-
ing Declarations 1-9 and Opimions I-12) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published shortly.

Volume 2. This volume, which contains the record of the
decisions taken by the International Commission at Lisbon in
1935, is being published in two Sections (Sections A and B) with
continuous pagination. Of these, Section A, containing Declara-
tions 10-12 and Opinions 134-160, isnow complete. Of Section B,
which will contain Opinions 161-181, Parts 31-45 (containing
Opimions 161-175) have now been published. The remaining
Parts of this volume are in the press and will be published as
soon as possible.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Ofimion 182,
will contain the Opimions adopted by the International Com-
mission since their meeting at Lisbon in 1935. Parts 1-11 (con-
taining Opinions 182-192) have now been published. Further
Parts will be published as soon as possible.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 175. 519

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Commission appeal earnestly to all institutions
and individuals interested in the development of zoological nomen-
elature to contribute, according to their means, to the Commission’s
Special (Publications) Fund. Of the total sum of £1,800 required
to enable the Commission to issue all the publications now awaiting
printing, donations amounting to £969 16s. 1d. were received up
to 30th June 1945. Additional contributions are urgently needed
in order to enable the Commission to continue their work without
interruption. Contributions of any amount, however small, will
be most gratefully received.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 46. Pp. 521-532.

OPINION 176
On the type of Conulinus von, Martens, 1895
: (Class Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora)
' (Opinion supplementary to Opinion 86)
LONDON : 3
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclattre
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946

Price two shillings and one penny

| EEEE DE EE TE TET L E

Issued 25th June, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdorr),
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.5.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 176.

ON THE TYPE OF CONULINUS VON MARTENS, 1895 (CLASS
GASTROPODA, ORDER STYLOMMATOPHORA) (OPINION SUP-
PLEMENTARY TO OPINION 86).

SUMMARY.—The decision in Opinion 86 that Bulimus conulus
Reeve, 1849 (Class Gastropoda, Order Stylommatophora), is the
type of Conulinus von Martens, 1895, is not affected by the dis-
covery that von Martens’ designation of that species as the type in
1897 is antedated by the designation by Woodward in 1896 of
Buliminus (Conulinus) ugandae von Martens, 1895, since the
decision in Opinion 86 is not dependent upon the action of von
Martens in 1897.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

Opinion 86 of the Commission, published in 1925, stated that
“ The generic name Conulinus von Martens, 1895, takes as type
Buliminus (Conulinus) conulus Rv., and is not necessarily invali-
dated by Conulina Bronn.”’

2. The reasons which led the Commission to the conclusion that
B. conulus Reeve was the type of Conulinus von Martens are
set out in the latter part of Opinion 86 under the heading “ Dis-
cussion.”

8, in 2929 Mr. J. K. Le B. Yomlin drew attention to the fact
that, contrary to the information submitted to the Commission
when the draft of Opinion 86 was under consideration, the first
designation of a type for Conulinus von Martens subsequent to
the publication of that name in 1895 was the designation in 1896
of Buliminus (Conulinus) ugandae von Martens, 1895, in the
Zoological Record for the year 1895 ([1896], Zool. Rec. 82: Moll.
59) and not the designation of Bulimus conulus Reeve, 1849, by
von Martens in 1897, as previously supposed. Mr. Tomlin’s
communication led the Commission to consider whether in the
altered circumstances any modification was called for in the
decision regarding the type of this genus embodied in Opinion 86.

II.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

4. On the receipt of the above communication from Mr. Tom-
lin, Dr. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, referred the problem

524 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

so raised to Commissioner F. A. Bather, by whom Opinion 86 had
been drafted. Dr. Bather replied suggesting that “ the Com-
mission be asked to re-affirm Opinion 86’ with the additional
fact submitted by Mr. Tomlin before it. Dr. Bather explained
at the same time that he considered that no “ statement in a
report or record or historical narration’ ought to be taken “ as
an original contribution by the reporter, recorder, or historian
unless he has clearly indicated his responsibility for it.” The full
text of Dr. Bather’s letter is quoted in Ofimion 172,1 which deals
with the general question raised by him in regard to the inter-
pretation of Article 30 of the International Code in relation to
the designation of the types of genera in abstracts and similar
publications.

5. The text of Dr. Bather’s letter was communicated to all
members of the Commission on its receipt by Dr. Stiles with a
request for the comments of Commissioners on Dr. Bather’s
proposal. In 1932 Dr. Stiles was in a position to report to the
Commission that nine of the eighteen Commissioners had expressed
themselves as being in agreement with Dr. Bather’s proposal.
The Commissioners in question were: Apstein, Cabrera, Chap-
man, Horvath, Ishikawa, Pellegrin, Silvestri, Stephenson and
Stone. If to these votes is added that of Dr. Bather himself,
there was therefore already a clear majority in the Commission
in favour of re-affrming Opinion 86. The only reason why an
Opinion was not at once rendered in that sense was that Dr. Stiles
suggested that the grounds proposed by Dr. Bather required
further examination and that it might be preferable to deal first
with the general question in regard to the interpretation of Article
30. Later Dr. Stiles suggested that the best course might be for
the Commission to postpone taking a decision on the points at
issue until they had had an opportunity of discussing the whole
matter at their meeting due to be held in Lisbon in September 1935.

III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

6. At their meeting held at Lisbon on Tuesday, 17th September
1935, the Commission considered both the general question of the
availability under Article 30 of the International Code of type
designations in Abstracts, Records, and similar publications and

1 See p. 474 above.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 176. 525

also the effect, if any, of a decision on this question on the decision
in regard to the type of the genus Conulinus von Martens, 1895,
embodied in Ofimion 86. The decision on the first of these
questions (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 9 (a) and (b)),
which has since been embodied in Ofinion 172,? was to the effect
that, where the type of a genus is clearly designated in an Abstract,
Record or similar publication, that designation must be accepted
as being within the scope of Article 30 of the International Code,
in cases where the generic name in question was published on, or
before, 31st December 1930.

7, Having reached this decision on the main problem involved,
the Commission turned to consider the position arising therefrom
as regards the generic name Conulinus von Martens, 1895. Inthe
course of the ensuing discussion, attention was drawn to the
following considerations :—

(a) For the reasons explained in the petition on which Opinion 86 was
founded, serious confusion would have arisen if the Commission had
not then (1925) secured that Bulimus conulus Reeve should be the
type of Conulinus von Martens.

(b) The Commission had not found it necessary on that occasion to use
their plenary powers to secure this end, since they were satisfied
that for other reasons that species was already the type of Conulinus
von Martens under the provisions of the International Code.

(c) Ten years had elapsed since the publication of Opinion 860. A change
in the type of this genus now would cause still greater confusion,

“ partly because of the additional period that had elapsed during
which Bulimus conulus Reeve had been accepted as its type and
partly because during that period the acceptance of that species as
the type of Conulinus von Martens had been expressly enjoined by
Opinion 86.

(d) The preliminary vote taken in 1931-1932 had shown in the clearest
possible fashion (10 votes in favour; none against) that the Com-
mission were firmly of the view that the decision in Opinion 86 should
be re-affirmed, notwithstanding the additional facts reported by Mr.
Tomlin in 1929 (see paragraph 3 of the present Opinion).

(e) In view of (c) and (d) above, the correct course for the Commission to
take at the present (Lisbon) meeting was to secure that Bulimus
conulus Reeve, 1849, remained the type of Conulinus von Martens,
1895. The only question for consideration was whether it would be
necessary to make use of the Commission’s plenary powers to secure
this end.

(f) No explanation had been given by the Commission in the ‘‘ summary ’’
of Opinion 86 regarding the grounds on which it had then been
decided that the above species was the type of Conulinus von
Martens under the provisions of the International Code; but in the
discussion of this case in the body of that Opinion reference had been
made to the action of von Martens in 1897 in designating B. conulus
Reeve as the type of Conulinus von Martens not as the factor deter-
mining the designation of that species as the type of that genus, but
as a factor confirming the conclusion that the type was this species.

2 See pp. 471-482 above.

526 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

The main grounds given in the “ discussion ’’ were set out (in para-
graph (3)) as follows :—

(3) If attention be confined for. the moment to this paper (1895), anyone selecting
a genotype would fix on B. conulus Reeve for two reasons :—

(a) As the common species, reference to which is dragged in by the
author with the obvious purpose of explaining his new subgenus;

(b) As being the trivial name on which the subgeneric name is, without
any doubt, based.

(g) The point made in paragraph (3) of the “‘ discussion ’’ in Opinion 86
(quoted above) would have been brought out more clearly if the
Commission had said: ‘‘ In erecting his new subgenus, von Martens
not only went out of his way to insert a reference to the common
species, B. conulus Reeve, but also deliberately selected for that
subgenus a name derived, without any doubt, from the trivial name
of that species. Through the tautonymy so created, von Martens
indicated that he regarded C. conulus Reeve as the type of the sub-
genus Conulinus von Martens.”

8. In the light of this discussion, the Commission reached the
conclusion first that the proper course in the circumstances was
to re-affirm Opinion 86 and second that there was no need to
make use of their plenary powers for this purpose. The Com-
mission agreed, however, that they would use those powers for
this purpose, if that course were necessary. They accordingly
agreed (Lisbon Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 9) ? :—

(b) to re-affirm (if necessary, under their plenary powers) that, as stated
in Opinion 86, Bulimus conulus Reeve, 1849, is the type of Conulinus
von Martens, 1895 (Mollusca) ;

g. Later in the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 4th Meeting, Conclusion 17), Commissioner Francis
Hemming, who, in the absence through ill-heath of Dr. C. W.
Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, had been charged with the
duty of preparing the report to be submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, reported that,
in accordance with the request made by the Commission on the
previous day (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion 3(b)), he
had made a start with the drafting of the Commission's report ;
that he had made considerable progress in spite of being hampered
by the lack of standard works of reference; and that he did not
doubt that he would be in a position to lay a draft report before
the Commission at their next meeting, though in the time available
it would be quite impracticable to prepare the drafts of paragraphs
relating to all the matters on which decisions had been reached

3 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencil. 1 : 36. 4

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 176. 527

during the Lisbon Session of the Commission. As agreed upon at
the meeting referred to above (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting,
Conclusion 3(a)(ii1)), he was therefore concentrating upon those
matters that appeared to be the more important. Commissioner
Hemming proposed that those matters which it was found im-
possible to include in the report, owing to the shortness of the
time available, should be dealt with after the Congress on the
basis of the records in the Official Record of the Proceedings of the
Commission during their Lisbon Session. For this purpose,
Commissioner Hemming proposed that all matters unanimously
agreed upon during the Lisbon Session should be treated in the
Same manner, whether or not it was found possible to include
references to them in the report to be submitted to the Congress,
and therefore that every such decision should be treated as having
been participated in by all the Commissioners and Alternates
present at Lisbon. The Commission took note of, and approved,
the statement by Commissioner Hemming, and adopted the pro-
posals submitted by him, as recorded above, in regard both to the
selection of items to be included in their report to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology and to the procedure to be
adopted after the Congress in regard to those matters with
which, for the reasons explained, it was found impossible to deal
in the report.

10. The question dealt with in the present Opinion was one of
the matters to which it was found impossible, in the time available,
to include a reference in the report submitted by the Commission
to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology at Lisbon. It is
therefore one of the matters which falls to be dealt with under the
procedure agreed upon by the Commission as set out in paragraph
9 above.

Iz. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
erers and Stejneger.
Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
_ Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter ; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

1z. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session.
13. The following five (5) Commissioners, who were not present

528 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates, did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

14. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent up on the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the By-Laws of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature provide that, except in cases involving
the suspension of the rules, an Opinion is to be deemed to have
been adopted by the said International Commission as soon as a
majority of the Members of the Commission, that is to say ten
(10) Members of the said Commission, have recorded their votes
in favour thereof, provided that, where any proposed Ofimion
involves a reversal of any former Opinion rendered by the Com-
mission, such proposed Opinion shall obtain the concurrence of at
least fourteen (14) Members of the Commission voting on the same
before such Opinion is to be deemed to have been adopted by the
Commission; and

WHEREAS the International Commission consider that the .
suspension of the rules is not required in order to give valid force
to the provisions of the present Opinion, as set out in the summary
thereof, but have nevertheless signified that, if such action was
requisite, they would be willing to use the said powers for the
purposes aforesaid; and

WHEREAS the present Opimion, as set out in the summary
thereof, does not involve the reversal of any former Opinion ©
rendered by the Commission; and *

WHEREAS twelve (12) Members of the Commission have signi-
fied their Concurrence in the present Opinion ‘either in person or
through Alternates at the Session of the Commission held at
Lisbon in September 1935 ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcISs HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 170. 529

holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opimion
Number One Hundred and Seventy Six (Ofimion 176) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

Done in London, this twenty-eighth day of October, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

530 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volumet. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have
never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original
issue of which is now out of print). In order that the volume,
when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling, it has been
decided to divide volume I into a series of Sections, which will be
continuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and
index. It is at present contemplated that the first of these
Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9 and Opimions
1-29, but no final decision can be taken until it is possible to
estimate more closely than at present the number of pages re-
quired for a volume so composed. An announcement on this
subject will be made as soon as possible. |

Parts 1-21 (comprising Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-12)
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will
be published as soon as possible.

Volume 2. This volume will contain Declarations 10-12 and
Opinions 134-181 and will thus be a complete record of all the
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. This
volume will be published in two Sections, which will be continu-
ously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and index.

Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opimions 134-160
(published in Parts 1-30 and 30A), is now complete, price
£4 4s. od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable
separately at the prices at which they were originally published.

Section B will comprise Opinions 161-181 (to be published in
Parts 31-52). Parts 31-50 (containing Opinions 161-180) have
now been published and it is hoped that the remaining Parts will
be issued at an early date.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 176. 531

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the first instalment of the Opinions adopted by the
International Commission since their Lisbon meeting. Parts
I-II (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenelature.

This journal was established by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in
order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments. received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

Parts 1-7 of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts
are in the press and will be published as soon as possible.

irsie

" x Bayan IN Cae \T BRI
-RicHarD CLAY AND Ci
BuNGAY, SuFFoL;
t

Eo. eal

PVCU,

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
‘NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 47. Pp. 533-544.

OPINION 177

On the type of the genus Euchloé Hubner,

[1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), a

genus based upon an erroneously determined
species

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature .
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946

Price two shillings and one penny

Issued 25th June, 1946

j A RSONTAN INS I

AUG -2 1946
“ATIONAL muses

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission
President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
4I, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 177.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS EUCHLOE HUBNER, [1819]
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), A GENUS BASED.
UPON AN ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES.

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Euchloe ausonia
Hiibner var. esperi Kirby, 1871, is hereby designated as the type
of Euchloé Hubner, [1819] (Class Inseeta, Order Lepidoptera).

I.—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the con-
sideration of the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion 65
relating to the determination of the types of genera based upon
erroneously determined species, with special reference to certain
genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). One of the
genera in question was Euchloé Hiibner, [1819], in the family
PIERIDAE.

2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to this genus
reads as follows :— !

(4) Eucutoé Hiibner, [1819] 2

Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (6) : 94 &
Butler, 1870, Cistula ent. 1 3; 53

51. Hiibner placed in this genus seven species (nos. 994-1000) but
desigriated no type. Hibner’s entry for the first of these species reads as
follows :—

994. Euchloé belia Esp. Pap. 92.1. Hutibn. Pap. 417. 418.

52. The figures given both by Esper and Hibner to which reference was
thus made by Hiibner on the present occasion unquestionably represent

1 The text of the first part of this paper relating to the interpretation
of Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). The
portions of the second part relating to the types of the other genera dis-
cussed are quoted in Opinions 169 (pp. 431-442 above) (Lycaeides Hiibner),
173 (pp. 483-494 above) (Agviades Hiibner), 175 (pp. 509-520 above)
(Polyommatus Latreille), 179 (pp. 557-568) (Princeps Hiibner), and 181
(pp. 589-612) (Carvchavodus Hibner).

2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written,
it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 16-17) that
pp. 65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823.
That date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examina-
tion of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct
date is 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibnerv 1: 517 and also Opinion 150
(pp. 161-168 in (Section A of) the present volume). This correction has
accordingly been made, wherever necessary, in the extract from Com-
missioner Hemming’s application quoted in the present paragraph.

536 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the common double-brooded South European species, of which both sexes
are devoid of orange tips on the forewings on the upperside and thus recall
the female of Papilio cardamines Linnaeus, 1758. As recently as Staudin-
ger, 1901 (2m Staudinger & Rebel, Cat. Lepid. pal. Faunengeb. 1:12) and -
Rober, [1907] (im Seitz, Grossschmett. Evde 1% 52) this species was still
treated as being Euchloé belia (Cramer).

53. The earliest figure of this species is that published by Stoll in 1782
(in Cramer, Uitl. Kapellen 4& (34) : 225 pl. 397 figs. A, B) from an example
taken at Smyrna. This specimen Stoll misidentified with Papilio belia
Linnaeus, 1767 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 12)1(2) : 761 no. 84). Thereafter without
a break until 1869 this species was known by the name belia. Almost
every author in that period overlooked both the fact that Stoll and not
Cramer was the author of this part of the Uzil. Kapellen and also the fact
that Stoll had not given to this species the name Papilio bela as a new name
but had expressly stated that he identified this species with Papilio belia
Linnaeus, 1767. In consequence of these errors the name of this species
throughout the period referred to above was almost invariably attributed
to Cramer.

54. In 1869 however Butler pointed out (Ent. mon. Mag. 5: 271) that
the name Papilio belia Linnaeus, 1767, could not possibly be associated.
with the insect from Smyrna figured under that name by Stoll (7m Cramer).
He accordingly named the Smyrna insect Euchloé cramem. At the same
time he pointed out that Papilio belia Linnaeus, 1767 (described from a
specimen taken in North Africa)-was the female of the insect described by
Linnaeus (also from a North African example) as Papilio eupheno Linnaeus,
1707 (Syst. Nat, (edy12) 1 (2): 762 no.3)-

55. Two years later the last threads of this complicated story were
straightened out when. Kirby (1871, Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep. : 506) noted
that the Smyrna insect originally called (though wrongly) Papilo belia
Linnaeus by Stoll and in 1869 named Euchloé cramer by Butler differed
subspecifically from the subspecies from Lyons and the South of France
which Esper had figured (also wrongly) as Papilio belia Linnaeus (Esper,
[178g], Die Schmett. Supp. Band, 1 Abschn. Tagschmett.: 1 pl. 94 fig. 1g).
This insect, as Esper himself pointed out, was the other sex of the insect
which he had already figured also as Papilio belia Linnaeus (Esper, [1784],
Die Schmeti. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmett, > 182 pl. (92 fig, mO)) airby,
rightly accepted the identification of Papilio belia Linnaeus as established
by Butler (1869) but considered (wrongly) that the oldest available name
for the collective species was Papilio ausonia Hiibner, [1803-1804 ],3 Sammi.
euvop. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 113 figs. 582-58399). He realised that the sub-
species that occurs at Lyons and in the South of France that had been
figured by Esper was without a name and he accordingly named it Euchloé
ausonia Hiibner var. esperi Kirby (ibid. : 506 no. 3 var. a). This therefore
is the correct name (from the subspecific point of view) of Esper’s insect
and therefore the correct name of the insect treated by Hubner in the
Verzeichniss as ‘“‘ Euchloé belia Esp.,”’ 1.e. his species no. 994.

56. Butler (1870) selected ‘‘ belia Cramer’’ as the type of the genus
Euchloé Hibner. As shown in paragraph 54 above, Butler was by that
date fully aware that ‘‘ belia Cramer ’’ was not the same species as Papilio
belia Linnaeus, 1767. ‘There is therefore no doubt that Butler’s intention
was to select as the type of this genus the species which Stoll (im Cramer) _
had misidentified as Papilio belia Linnaeus, i.e. the insect which later had
been misidentified in the same way by Esper and which Hiibner had called
“* Euchloé belia Esp.” in the Verzeichniss.

57. The only difficulty arises from the fact that (as shown above)

3 Kirby assigned the date 1803 tothisname. Itis now known, however,
that it should be dated [1803-1804] (see Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 230).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 177. 537

Hubner made a mistake of identification in the case of the species (no. 994)
which Butler later selected as the type of the genus Euchloé Hiibner.
That genus is therefore a genus based upon an erroneously determined
species. If in this case the preliminary assumption enjoined by Opinion
65 (namely that Hiibner correctly identified the species placed by him in
the genus Euchloé at the time that he founded that genus) were to be
maintained against all the weight of the known facts, the result would be as
follows :—

(i) the name Euchloé Hibner, [1819], would cease to be available for
the group of species without orange tips on the upperside of the fore-
wings in the males, and these species would need to be referred to
the genus Elphinstonia Klots, 1930 (Bull. Brooklyn ent. Soc. 25 : 87)
(type: <Anthocharis charlonia Donzel 1842); (For the grounds on
which these species are separated generically from the group with
orange tips on the upperside of the forewings in the males, see Klots,
1933, Ent. amer. (n.s.) 12 : 167-171)

(ii) the name Euchloé Hubner, [1819], would replace the well-known
name Anthocharis Boisduval, Rambur & Graslin, [1833], (Coll. icon.
hist. Chen. Europe (21) : pl. 5) (type: Papilio cardamines Linnaeus,
1758) as the generic name for the group of species with orange tips
on the upperside of the forewings in the males, since Papilio belia
Linnaeus, 1767 (= Papilio eupheno Linnaeus, 1767) is certainly con-
generic with Papilio cardamines Linnaeus, the type of Anthocharis
Boisduval, Rambur & Graslin, [1833].

58. The maintenance of the erroneous assumption discussed above
would thus create one of those “‘ transfer ’’ cases, the prevention of which
was one of the avowed objects of the Ninth International Congress of
Zoology when they conferred upon the International Commission plenary
powers to suspend the rules in certain cases. For the reasons set out above,
I accordingly now ask the International Commission to render an Opinion
under their plenary powers designating as the type of Euchloé Hubner,
[1819], the insect included by Hibner in that genus as ‘‘ Euchloé belia
Esp.’ and subsequently selected by Butler as the type. This is the insect
of which the correct name is Euchloé ausonia Hiibner var. espert Kirby,
1871. I suggest this course partly because it corresponds with the actual
history of this case and partly because there is considerable doubt as to
what is the oldest available name for this collective species. This doubt
arises from various taxonomic as contrasted with nomenclatorial con-
siderations (namely the question of the identity of the species to which
some of the earlier names should be applied and the question whether the
insects so named should be regarded as conspecific with one another or
should be treated as constituting two or more separate species). The
raising of these taxonomic considerations, which fall outside the scope of
the International Commission, is avoided by the course here proposed.

i oe SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

538 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

proposed. Having reached this conclusion on the general
question involved, the International Committee examined the
particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same
paper. The International Committee considered that, if (as they
had just agreed to recommend) the International Commission
agreed to render an Opinion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner
proposed in the petition, the only possible course as regards the
genus Euchloé Htibner, [1819], would be for the International
Commission to render an Opinion declaring the type of this genus
to be the species which Hiibner called “ Euchloé belta Esp.” in the
Verz. bekannt. Schmett. As regards the name to be used in that
Opinion for that species, the International Committee agreed
that, in order to avoid raising purely taxonomic questions, the
most suitable name would (as suggested in the application) be
Euchloé ausona Hiibner var. espert Kirby, 1871. The Interna-
tional Committee agreed therefore to recommend the Interna-
tional Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to proceed in this
way under their plenary powers.

4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the Interna-
- tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting
held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress
of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on 12th
September 1935.

III.—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

4 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this
petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinidn
168 (pp. 411-430 above).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 177. 539

Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at
which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of
the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session
to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“under suspension of the rules’’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases
in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic-
able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no
Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said
advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for
publication. The case of Euchloé Hiibner, [1819], was among the
cases in question and was accordingly dealt with under the above
procedure.

6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com-
mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard
to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23(a)).5 Having thus
cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the Com-
mission proceeded to consider the present and certain other cases
in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta) and the resolutions in
regard thereto submitted by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the
present case, the International Commission agreed (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) :—*

(b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the
undermentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in
question to be the species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(4) Euchloé Hibner, [1819], Euchloé ausoma Hubner var.
Verz. bek. Schmett. (6): 94 espert Kirby, 1871, Syn. Cat.
diurn. Lep. : 506
(the species misidentified as
Papilio belia Linnaeus, 1767, by
Stoll (4 Cramer), and by Esper
and Hubner)

5 Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 3 23-24.

540 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

7. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 29 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Con-
clusion 6), the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. The report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held
on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day
of the Congress.

8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
5 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of ©
the journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con-
ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given
case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica-
tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise-
ment in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules
in the present case, no communication of any kind has been
addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue e of
an Opinion in the terms proposed.

9g. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

6 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 177. 541

agreement with the conclusions then reached by the Commission
in this matter.

11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the above Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to
any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said
case should be given in two or more of five journals specified in the
said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission
was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of the
rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and ~

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and

542 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Seventy Seven (Opinion 177) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion.

DoneE in London, this eleventh day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 177. 543

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 4I,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volumet. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which have
never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original
issue of which is now out of print). In order that the volume,
when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling, it has been
decided to divide volume 1 into a series of Sections, which will be
continuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and
index. It is at present contemplated that the first of these
Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9 and Opinions
I-29, but no final decision can be taken until it is possible to
estimate more closely than at present the number of pages re-
quired for a volume so composed. An announcement on this
subject will be made as soon as possible.

Parts I-21 (comprising Declarations 1-9 and Opinions 1-12)
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will
be published as soon as possible.

Volume 2. This volume will contain Declarations 10-12 and
Opinions 134-181 and will thus be a complete record of all the ~
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. This
volume will be published in two Sections, which will be continu-
ously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and index.

Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160
_ (published in Parts 1-30 and 30A), is now complete, price
£4 4s. od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable
separately at the prices at which they were originally published.

544 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal was established by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in
order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

Parts 1-7 of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts
are in the press and will be published as soon as possible. —

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 48. Pp. 545-556.

ood

OPINION 178

On the status of the names Serphus Schrank,
1780, and Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

LONDON :

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946
Price two shillings and one penny

Issued 25th June, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President: Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

: Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. Vokes (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.
Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 178.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES SERPHUS SCHRANK,
1780, AND PROCTOTRUPES LATREILLE, 1796 (CLASS IN-
SECTA, ORDER HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules (i) the name
Serphus Schrank, 1780, is suppressed for all purposes other than
Article 34 of the International Code; (ii) all type designations for
Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796, made prior to the date of this
Opinion, are set aside; and (iii) Proctotrupes brevipennis Latreille,
[1802-1808],1 is hereby designated as the type of Proctotrupes
Latreille, 1796 (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera). The name
Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796, with the type indicated above, is
hereby added to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as
Name No. 616.

Peal STA re MENT OF THE CASK.

As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James
Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order
Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in all countries, the following
petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other hymeno-
pterists was submitted to the International Commission :—

THE CASE OF PROCTOTRUPES VERSUS SERPHUS

Proctotvupes was proposed by Latreille, 1796, without species. Under
Opinion 46 its type is Proctotvupes brevipennis Latreille, 1802,1 said to be a
synonym of Ichneumon divagator Olivier, and a Proctotrvupes in the sense of
authors. But Proctotrupes Latr., 1796, is a synonym of Sevphus Schrank,
1780, the type of which is the congeneric Serphus brachypterus Schrank.

Since Proctotvupes has been in universal use as type of a well known family,
erected by Latreille in 1802, and is the type of a superfamily PROCTOTRU-
POIDEA, to change these generic, family and superfamily names as Kieffer
has done to Serphus, SERPHIDAE, and SERPHOIDEA, would cause confusion.

The undersigned therefore petition the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature :

(1) to suspend the rules in the cases of the generic names Serphus
Schrank and Pyvoctotvupes Latreille ;

(2) to permanently reject Sevphus Schrank, 1780, type Serphus brachy-
plerus Schrank ;

(3) to validate Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796, type P. brevipennis Latr. ;

(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names, the name Proctotrupes
Latreille, 1796, type Proctotrvupes brevipennis Latreille, as the correct
name for the genus of parasitic wasps commonly passing under that
name.

1 The reference is Latreille, [1802-1803], (tm Sonnini’s Buffon), Hist. nat.

gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3: 309. For the date here assigned to this volume
of the Hist. nat., see Griffin, 1938, J. Soc. Bibl. nat. Hist. 1 3 157.

548 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-

mission :—

Cy Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert Dy Atiken: * H. Brauns ¢

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
The brisons* J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
ASR ark: R. Fouts P. P. Babiy
Ei. WRossi G. Arnold V.S. L. Pate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein
Giay lee H. Hacker T. Uchida +

R. A. Cushman * Ae Konseyar Os Noat

ee tOtt H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +
A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl E. Kruger +

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E. Enslin F. X. Williams +

H. von Ihering {
A. C. W. Wagner

A. von Schulthess
R. B. Benson *

O. Schmiedeknecht +
N N. Kuznezov-

H. Hedicke H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky tT
H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * F. E. Lutz
L. Masi D. S. Wilkinson * L. H. Weld*

* In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied
the points involved in the particular case.
} Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not included in his reply.

t Deceased.

Il.— THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. This case was circulated to the members of the International

Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in January 1935, when
it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases sub-
mitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the
Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year,
by which time the recommendations of the International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 178. 549

by the names Serphus Schrank, SERPHIDAE, and SERPHOIDEA.
The International Committee agreed therefore to recommend
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature that
the name Serphus Schrank, 1780, should be suppressed under the
- Commission’s plenary powers and that Proctotrupes Latreille,
1796 (type: Proctotrupes brevipennis Latreille, [1802—1803]),
should be placed on the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology.

5. The above and other recommendations adopted by the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at
their meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth Inter-
national Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held
at Madrid on 12th September 1935.

III.— THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

6. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their
meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9g), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the
Commission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at
which a decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of
the Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session
to such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“under suspension of the rules’”’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases in
question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practicable
after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no Opinion
should be rendered and published thereon until after the expiry
of a period of one year from the date on which the said advertise-
ment was despatched to the prescribed journals for publication.
The case of the names Serphus Schrank, 1780, and Proctotrupes

550 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Latreille, 1796, was one of the cases in question and was accord-
ingly dealt with by the Commission under the above procedure.

@) fete, ier ‘eis

(b) under ‘“‘ suspension of the rules ’’ permanently to reject the following
generic names :—

(c) under “‘ suspension of the rules ’’ to set aside all type designations for
the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(32) ‘Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796, Proctotvupes brevipennis Latreille,
Précis Caract. Ins. : 108 [1802-1803], (am Sonnini’s
Buffon), Hist. nat. gén. paritc.
Crust. Ins. 3 3 309

(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

g. At the same meeting the Commission agreed (Lisbon Session,
5th Meeting, Conclusion 10 3) that Commissioner Karl Jordan
(President of the Commission) and the new Secretary to the Com-
mission, when elected, should be authorised to make such arrange-
ments and to take such other action, as might appear to them to
be necessary or expedient :— )

(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ;

(ii) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agreed upon from time
to time by the Commission ;

(iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their

Lisbon Session ;

(iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-.
mission; and generally

)

(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

2 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool..
Nomencl. 1 : 27-30.

3 See 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1: 48.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 178. 551

10. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved
by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the
International Commission held on the afternoon of the same day.
It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology, by which it was unanimously approved and adopted
at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

Iz. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
6 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals specified in the Resolution* adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
case of the names dealt with in the present Opinion, one communi-
cation only has been addressed to the Commission raising objection
to the suspension of the rules in this case. This communication,
which was dated 1st March 1937, and bore the signature of Dr.
S. A. Rohwer, was addressed to the Commission in the name of.
the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological Society of
Washington., The passage in that document relating to the
present case reads as follows :— |

THE CASE OF PROCTOTRUPES LATREILLE, 1796

Proctotrvupes Latr., 1796, described without originally included species, is
a straight synonym of Serphus Schrank, 1780, although until the beginning
of this century it, rather than Serphus, was generally employed for this
group. However, during the past twenty-five years vastly more taxono-
mic literature has used Serphus, SERPHIDAE and SERPHOIDEA than Pyocto-
tyvupes, PROCTOTRUPIDAE and PROCTOTRUPOIDEA. J. J. Kieffer, who has
published an enormous amount of work on the group, much more than any
other investigator, has used Sevphus, and supergeneric names based on that
generic name, in such standard monographs as those published in André’s
“ Species des Hyménopteéeres d@ Europe et Algerie, vol. 10 (1907) ; in Wytsman’s
Geneva Insectorum, fasc. 95 (1909), and in Das Tuierreich (1914). Brues,®

4 See Declaration 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

5 It will be seen from paragraph 2 of the present Opinion that this
author’s name is one of those included in the list of signatories of the
petition submitted to the International Commission in es of the
suspension of the rules in this case.

552 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Crawford, Fouts,® Gahan ® and others have followed Kieffer in this usage,
and there now exists a large body of literature in which Serphus and the
supergeneric names based on it have been employed. It seems therefore
wholly unnecessary, and decidedly inadvisable, to revert to Proctotrupes
in this case.

12. Immediately upon its receipt by the Commission copies of
the document from which the passage quoted above is an extract
were communicated (April 1937) to each member of the Com-
mission, but since that date no member of the Commission has
expressed himself as being in agreement with the representations
contained therein.

13. The representations set out in paragraph 11 above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of
the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened
in London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolu-
tion adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon
on 18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 9
above). The Plenary Conference (Plenary Conference, Ist
Meeting, Conclusion 9) ®:—

(b) examined the communications that had been received during the
prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned names :—

(vil) Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796 from the Committee on Nomen-
clature of the Entomological Society of Washington

(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought
forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in
favour of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to
them by the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature in resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth Inter-
national Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year ;

® Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which relate to the present case

are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 76-77.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 178. 553

International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by
that Congress at the Concilium Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st
September 1935.

14. The present Opimion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the. Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

15. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Com-
missioner or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since
_ that Session has any Commissioner who was neither present on
that occasion nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated
disagreement with the conclusions then reached by the Com-
mission in this matter.

16. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

17. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology,
plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity, provided that not less than one year’s notice of the
possible suspension of the rules as applied to the said case should
be given in two or more of five journals specified in the said
Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Commission was
unanimously in favour of the said suspension of the rules; and

554 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the
terms of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Seventy Eight (Opinion 178) of the
said Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this eleventh day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 178. 555

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volumet. This volume willcontain Declarations 1-9 (which have
never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original
issue of which is now out of print). In order that the volume,
when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling, it has been
decided to divide volume 1 into a series of Sections, which will be
continuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and’
index. It is at present contemplated that the first of these
Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9 and Opinions
I-29, but no final decision can be taken until it is possible to
estimate more closely than at present the number of pages re-
quired for a volume so composed. An announcement on this
subject will be made as soon as possible.

Parts 1-21 (comprising Declarations 1-9 and Opimions 1-12)
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will
be published as soon as possible.

556 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Volume 3. This volume, which commenced with Opinion 182,
will contain the first instalment of the Opzmions adopted by the
International Commission since their Lisbon meeting. Parts
I-11 (containing Opinions 182-192) have now been published.
Further Parts will be published as soon as possible.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal was established by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in
order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the.
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

Parts 1-7 of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts
are in the press and will be published as soon as possible.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

- Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 49. Pp. 557-568.

OPINION 179

On the type of the genus Princeps Hubner,

[1807], and its synonym Orpheides Hubner,

[1819] (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera),

genera based upon an erroneously determined
species

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946
Price two shillings and one penny

Issued 25th June, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946

Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKTI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr, Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada). .
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

4
(2.5
t

AUG - 2 1946
ZONAL MUSES

OPINION 179.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS PRINCEPS HUBNER, [1807],
AND ITS SYNONYM ORPHEIDES HUBNER, [1819] (CLASS
INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), GENERA BASED UPON
AN ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES,

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the rules Papilio demodocus
Esper, [1798], is hereby designated as the type of Princeps Hubner,
[1807], and of its synonym Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], (Class
Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the
consideration of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opimon
65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based
upon erroneously determined species, with special reference to
certain genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). One of
the genera in question was Princeps Hiibner, [1807], in the family
PAPILIONIDAE.

2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to this genus
reads as follows :—!

(5) PRINCEPS HUBNER, [1807], AND ORPHEIDES HUBNER,
[1819] ?
(A) Princeps Hiibner, [1807]
Hibner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. [116]

59. This name first appeared in print in Hiibner’s Tentamen, where
Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, was the sole species cited and would
have been the type by monotypy, had it not been for the fact that the
International Commission have declared in Opinion 97 that the Tentamen
is to be rejected. In the same Opinion the Commission stated that the
Tentamen names should be judged for purposes of availability as from the
date of their next subsequent publication.

1 The text of the first part of this paper relating to the interpretation of
Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). The
portions of the second part relating to the type of the other genera dis-
cussed are quoted in Opinions 169 (pp. 431-442 above) (Lycaeides Hiibner),
173 (pp. 483-494 above) (Agriades Hubner), 175 (pp. 509-520 above)
(Polyommatus Latreille), 177 (pp. 533-544 above) (Euchloé Hiibner), and 181
(pp. 589-612) (Carchavodus Hubner).

2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written,
it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Buit. 1: 16-17) that
pp. 65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823.

560 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

60. The first publication of the name Princeps after the Tentamen
is in volume 1 of Hiibner’s Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge. Hiibner
there used this name as a generic name for the species figured on plates
[106] to [134]. These plates were not published in serial order and their
publication was spread over a long period. Only one of these plates was
published as early as 19th December 1807. This is plate [116] depicting a
species to which Hiibner applied the name Princeps demoleas [sic]. This is
the sole species placed in this genus by that date and is accordingly the
type of Princeps Hubner, [1807].

61. Hubner never cited authors’ names, when giving the names of
species on the legends of plates in the Samml. exot. Schmett. and it is
necessary first to determine whether he considered himself the author of
the name Princeps demoleas. If he did so consider himself, no difficulty
would arise as regards Pvinceps Hiibner, since it would not be the name of
a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. There is, how-
ever, no doubt that Hiibner did not regard himself in this light. The
insect figured on pl. [116] is the tropical African Papilionid which in 1764
Linnaeus, when compiling his catalogue of the collection of Queen Ludovica
Ulrica of Sweden, described under the name Papilio demoleus. This name
was not published by Linnaeus for the first time in 1764; all that he did
on that occasion was to apply to this African species the name Papilio
demoleus, which he had first published in 1758. Unfortunately, Linnaeus
had in 1758 applied this name not to the present African species but to a
similar Indo-Oriental species. This mistake by Linnaeus is well known
to all students of this group, who agree that the synonymy of the two
species is as follows :— |

(i) The Indo-Oriental species: Papilio demoleus Linnaeus, 1758
Papilio demoleus Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1: 464 ‘‘ Habitat in Asia”’

(ii) The African species: Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798 |
Papilio demoleus Linnaeus, 1764 [nec 1758], Mus. Lud. Ulr.: 214 “‘ Habitat ad Cap. b.

Sper

Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205 pl. 51 fig. 1

Pyrinceps demoleas [sic] Linnaeus, 1764 [nec 1758], Htibner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett.
1 pllrr6]

Orpheides demoleus Linnaeus, 1764 [nec 1758], Hiibner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett.
(6) : 86 :

62. The position is therefore :—

(i) that by 19th December 1807 Hiibner had only published one species
for the genus Princeps Hubner, of which therefore the species so
included is the type by monotypy ; ?

That date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examination
of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct date is
1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibner 1: 517 and also Opinion 150 (pp. 161-
168 in (Section A of) the present volume). This correction has accordingly
been made, wherever necessary, in the extract from Commissioner Hem-
ming’s application quoted in the present paragraph.

3’ Hiibner gave no description or definition for the new generic names
published by him in the Sammi. exot. Schmett. Accordingly, such names
are only available when they were accompanied by an “‘ indication.”” As
prescribed in Opinion 1 (see 1944, Opinions and Declarations rendered by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 73-86), a
generic name published for a genus, in which only one species was included
by the original author of the genus, is to be accepted as a monotypical
genus and therefore as a genus, for which an “‘ indication ’’ was given by
its author at the time of the first publication of the generic name in question. ~

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 179. 5601

(ii) that this species is the African species which in 1764 Linnaeus
misidentified with the Indo-Oriental species Papilio demoleus
Linnaeus, 1758;

(iii) that, when publishing the first of the plates depicting species of the
genus Pyvinceps Hiibner, Hiibner made the same error of identifica-
tion as that made by Linnaeus in 1764 and applied to the African
species the specific trivial name demoleus (misspelt demoleas either
by a slip of the pen or by a printer’s error) which properly belongs to
the Indo-Oriental species. :

63. Accordingly, if it were to be assumed—as under Opinion 65 it must
be assumed in the first instance—that Hiibner correctly identified Papilio
demoleus Linnaeus, 1758, the ludicrous position would arise, whereby the
type of Pvinceps Hiibner would be the Indo-Oriental species in spite of the
fact that the African species is the only species which Hiibner had placed
in that genus at the time he first published a plate representing a species
thereof. This is therefore quite clearly a case where the preliminary
assumption prescribed by Opinion 65 must be discarded and one where the
second part of that Opinion comes into operation, that is to say that the
case should be submitted “‘ with full details’ to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

64. In order to secure that the type of this genus shall be the only
species included in it by Hiibner at the time that he first published the
generic name Princeps Hibner, I therefore now ask the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render an Opinion under their
plenary powers, declaring that the type of Pvinceps Hibner, [1807], is
Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], the species which was figured by Hiibner
in 1807 as Princeps demoleas [sic] and was the sole species at that time
placed in this genus.

(B) Orpherdes Hubner, [1819]
Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (6) : 86

65. The position of the genus Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], is indistinguish-
able from that of Princeps Hiibner, [1807]. Hubner placed two species
in this genus (species nos. 886 & 887) but designated no type. The entry
for the first of these species reads as follows :—

886. Orpheides Demoleus Linn. Syst. Pap. 46. Cram. 231. A.B. MHiibn. Prin. dom.
Demoleus.

66. It will be seen from the above entry that Hiibner made exactly the
same mistake of identification as that made by Linnaeus in 1764 (see para-
graph 61 above); he misapplied to the African species the name Papilio
demoleus Linnaeus, 1758, which (as already explained) applies properly to
the Indo-Oriental species. This species was selected as the type of the
genus Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], by Scudder in 1875 (Proc, Amer. Acad.
Aris Sci., Boston 10 : 234). There is no doubt whatever that it was the
African and not the Indo-Oriental species which Scudder had in mind
when he wrote the words ‘“‘ Demoleus may be taken as the type.’ First,
he enumerated the two species placed in this genus by Hiibner and printed
the name of the first (Demoleus) in clarendon type, the method by which
throughout his 1875 paper he indicated which species was the type of each
genus. Second, as already explained (in paragraph 33 above 4) in con-

Hubner included a large number of species in the genus Princeps Hiibner,
but by roth December 1807, the date on which pl. [116] (containing figures
of Princeps demoleas) was published, only one species (Princeps demoleas)
had been assigned by Hiibner to the genus Princeps Hiibner. Princeps
demoleas is therefore the type of Princeps Hibner, [1807], by monotypy.

4 For the text of the passage here referred to, see paragraph 2 of Opinion

169 (Pp. 435-436 above).

502 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

nection with Scudder’s identification of Papilio argus Linnaeus, Hiibner,
as the type of Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819], Scudder throughout his 1875
paper used the nomenclature in the (then recently published) Syn. Cat.
diurn. Lep. of Kirby (1871) and cited in brackets the name used by Kirby
for any given species, if that name was different from the one given for the
species in question by the original author of a genus. In the present case,
Scudder placed no name in brackets against the name ‘‘ Demoleus,”’
thereby signifying that Kirby had used the same name for this species. This
species is dealt with on p. 543 of Kirby’s Catalogue, where from the refer-
ences cited, which include Papilio demodocus Esper, it is quite clear that
Kirby, like Linnaeus in 1764, misidentified the African species with Papilio
demoleus Linnaeus, 1758.

67. In these circumstances it is evident that whatever decision is taken
in regard to Princeps Hubner, [1807], must govern also Orpheides Hiibner,
[1819]. I accordingly ask the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature to include in the proposed Opinion a declaration that
Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798], is the type of Orpheides Hiibner. That
genus will thereupon become de juve what it has always been treated as
being by those who accepted the Samml. exot. Schmett. and not the Tenta-
men as the place where the name Prvinceps Hiibner was first published (see
paragraph 60 above), namely an objective synonym of Prvinceps Hiibner,

[1807]. e

II1—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

3. The questions raised in Commissioner Hemming’s paper
were considered by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935
during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The
International Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render
an Opinion clarifying the meaning of Ofinion 65 in the manner
proposed.®> Having reached this conclusion on the general
question involved, the International Committee examined the
particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same
paper. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature considered that, if (as they had agreed to recommend)
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
agreed to render an Opinion clarifying Opinion 65 in the
manner proposed in the petition, the only possible course as
regards the genus Princeps Hiibner, [1807], and its synonym
Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], would be for the International Com-
mission to render an Ofimion declaring that Papilio demodocus
Esper, [1798], to be the type of both these genera. The Interna-
tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed there-

®> For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this
petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinion
168 (pp. 411-430 above).

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE, OPINION 179. 563

fore to recommend the International Commission on Zoological |
Nomenclature to proceed in this way under their plenary powers.

4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the Interna-
tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their
meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth Interna-
tional Congress of Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at
Madrid on 12th September 1935.

III.—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness
of Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other
causes. In these circumstances the Commission decided at their
_ meeting held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate
consideration should be given to all cases submitted to the Com-
mission that, in their judgment, had reached the stage at which a
decision could properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the
Commission should be suspended during the Lisbon Session to
such extent as might be necessary to give effect to this decision ;
and that, in so far as this procedure involved taking decisions
“under suspension of the rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed
advertisement procedure had not been complied with, the cases
in question should be duly advertised as soon as might be practic-
able after the conclusion of the Lisbon Congress and that no
_ Opinion should be rendered and published thereon until after the
expiry of a period of one year from the date on which the said
advertisement was despatched to the prescribed journals for
publication. The case of Princeps Hiibner, [1807] (and its
synonym Orpheides Hiibner, [1819], was among the cases in
question and was accordingly dealt with under the above pro-
cedure. E

6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com-

564 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATION AL

mission agreed upon certain clarifications of Opinion 65 in regard
to the status of genera based upon erroneously determined species
(Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).6 Having
thus cleared the ground regarding the principles involved, the
Commission proceeded to consider the present and certain other
cases in the Order Lepidoptera and the resolutions in regard thereto
submitted by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature. After careful consideration of the present case,
the International Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 23 (b) and (c)) ® :—

(b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under-
mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question
to be the species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus

(5) Princeps Hiibner, [1807], Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798],
Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pl. Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205
[116] (first described by Linnaeus in
and 1764 as Papilio demoleus, a name
Orpheides Hiibner, [1819],? given by him in 1758 to another
Verz. bek. Schmeit. (6) : 86 species; similarly misidentified
by Hiibner)

7. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 29 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Con-
clusion 6), the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. That report was
unanimously approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its
joint meeting with the International Commission held on the
afternoon of the same day. It was thereupon submitted to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, by which it was
unanimously approved and adopted at the Concilium Plenum
held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last
day of the Congress.

8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph

§ Only those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencel. 1 3 23-25.

* As explained on page 68 of vol. 1 of the Bull. zool. Nomencl., it was
believed at the time of the Lisbon Session that this name was published in
1823. See also footnote 2. For the reasons there explained, the date has
been corrected to 1819, the year in which it is now known that this name
was published.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 179. 565 |

5 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals specified in the Resolution § adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress con-
ferred upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to any given
case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict applica-
tion of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than
uniformity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertise-
ment in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules
in the present case, no communication of any kind has been
addressed to the International Commission objecting to the issue
of an Opinion in the terms. proposed.

g. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates-present at the Lisbon Session of the
International Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
ibnacioy wee stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice -
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

10. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session has
any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion nor
represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement with
the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter.

11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon or represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on the
present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.

12. At the time when the vote was taken on the present Opinion,
there was one (1) vacancy in the Commission consequent upon the
death of Commissioner Horvath.

a AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological

8 See Declavation 5 (1943, Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature 1 : 31-40).

566 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the rules as applied to
any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the rules would clearly result in greater con-
fusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible suspension of the rules as applied to the
said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified
in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Com-
mission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of
the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
_ of the present Opinion ;
Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office of Secretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Opinion on behalf of the Inter-
national Commission, acting for the International Congress of
Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion
Number One Hundred and Seventy Nine (Ofzmzon 179) of the said
Commission. |

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion. ,

DoneE in London, this twentieth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited an the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 179. 567

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.)

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volumet. This volume willcontain Declarations 1-9 (which have
never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the original
issue of which is now out of print). In order that the volume,
when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling, it has been
decided to divide volume 1 into a series of Sections, which will be ~
continuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and
index. It is at present contemplated that the first of these
Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9 and Opinions
I-29, but no final decision can be taken until it is possible to
estimate more closely than at present the number of pages re-
quired for a volume so composed. An announcement on this
subject will be made as soon as possible.

Parts 1-21 (comprising Declarations 1-g and Opinions 1-12)
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and will
be published as soon as possible.

Volume 2. This volume will contain Declarations 10-12 and
Opimions 134-181 and will thus be a complete record of all the
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. This
volume will be published in two Sections, which will be continu-
ously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and index.

Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160
(published in Parts 1-30 and 304A), is now complete, price
£4 4s. od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable
separately at the prices at which they were originally published.

568 INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal was established by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in
order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision ;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

Parts 1-7 of volume 1 have now been published. Further Parts
are in the press and will be published as soon as possible.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND CompPaANy, LTp.,
BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by cs
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 50. Pp. 569-588.

OPINION 180

On the status of the names Sphex Linnaeus,
1738, and Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)

LONDON:

Printed by Order of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature
Sold at the Publications Office of the Commission
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1946
Price three shillings and six pence

sued 25th June, 1946

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President: Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1946
Herr Professor Dr. Walter ARNDT (Germany).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan). *
Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).
Dr Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).
Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Class 1949
Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina). ;
Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).
Dr. Th. MORTENSEN (Denmark).
Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952
Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).
Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U:S.A.).
Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).
Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).
Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7

Personal address of the Secretary :
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

AARSONIAN INSTT
fa Ni

f
4

\ AUG-2 1946
irons, mused

OPINION 180.

ON THE STATUS OF THE NAMES SPHEX LINNAEUS, 1758,
AND AMMOPHILA KIRBY, 1798 (CLASS INSECTA, ORDER
HYMENOPTERA).

SUMMARY.—Under the rules the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) is Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus,
1758, as stated in Opinion 32 rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature prior to the grant to them by
the International Congress of Zoology at Monaco in 1918 of plenary
power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in
their judgment, the strict application of the rules would clearly
result in greater confusion than uniformity. In the judgment of
the Commission, Sphea Linnaeus, 1758, is such a case. Accord-
ingly, under suspension of the rules (i) all type designations for
Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, and Ammophila Kirby, 1798, made prior to
the date of this Opinion are hereby set aside ; (ii) Sphex flavipennis
Fabricius, 1793, is hereby designated as the type of Sphex Linnaeus,
1758 ; and (iii) Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758, is hereby designated
as the type of Ammophila Kirby, 1798. The names Sphex Linnaeus,
1758, and Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Class Inseeta, Order Hymeno-
ptera), with the types indicated above, are hereby added to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 617
and 618.

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

As the result of consultations initiated by Professor James
Chester Bradley with the leading systematic workers in the Order
Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) in all countries, the following
petition signed by Professor Chester Bradley and 59 other Hymeno-
pterists was submitted to the International Commission :—

THE CASES OF SPHEX AND AMMOPHILA

The genus Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, has for its type S. sabulosa L. by designa-
tion of Fernald (Entomological News 1905, v. 15 p. 163 and see further
Opinion 32). But it has long and universally been used in a sense as
though Sphex maxillosus of Fabricius were type (as it was incorrectly
Stated to be by Kohl, 1890) and in that sense was used as type of the sub-
family SPHECINAE by Ashmead in 1899. Since Fernald’s designation of
sabulosa as type American authors have generally used Sphex to replace

what has always been called Ammophila, a genus which on account of
*

572 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

biologically interesting habits has been extensively mentioned in general
literature, and have correspondingly used CHLORIONINAE instead of
SPHECINAE, together with SPHECINAE in lieu of AMMOPHILINAE, European
authors have not generally made this change.

The genus Ammophila Kirby, 1798, has also for its type Sphex sabulosa
of Linnaeus, cited by Kirby as a synonym of his first included species
vulgaris, and designated by Latreille, 1810, asa type. Ammophila, there-
fore, under the Code, although in universal use for more than a century is
a pure synonym of Sphex, which has been the universally accepted name
of a large related genus.

Therefore, according to the Code:

Sphex of authors becomes Ammobia Billberg ranked as a subgenus
of Chlorion Lattr. ;

Subfamily SPHECINAE of authors becomes CHLORIONINAE ;

Subfamily AMMOPHILINAE of authors becomes SPHECINAE nec auctt,

In order to conserve these names in their long accepted sense the under-
signed respectfully petition the International Commission on_ Zoological
Nomenclature to take the following action, to wit :

(1) to suspend the rules in the case of the generic names Sphex and
Ammophila ;
(2) to set aside the designation by Fernald of sabulosa L. as the type =
Sphex ;
(3) to validate :—
(a) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, with S. flavipennis Fabr. as type;

None of the originally contained species definitely recognizable at present,
belong to Sphex in the sense of authors. S. flavipennis, athough not an
original species, was designated (invalidly according to the Code) as type of
Sphex by Latreille, 1810.

(b) Ammophila Kirby, 1798, type Sphex sabulosa Fabr., by
designation of Latreille, 1810;

j
(4) to place on the Official List of Generic Names :

Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, type Sphex flavipennis Fabr. as the correct
name for a genus of digger-wasps with one-segmented petiole;

Ammophila Kirby, 1798, type Sphex sabulosa Fabr. as the correct
name for a genus of digger-wasps with two-segmented petiole.
2. The following is the list of signatures attached to the above
petition at the time of its submission to the International Com-
mission :—

C. T. Brues R. Benoist * H. Haupt

Jos. Bequaert jp De Altken: H. Brauns ¢

G. Grandi A. Krausse L. Berland

A. B. Gahan * M. Wolff A. A. Oglobin
iE Prison J. G. Betrem O. W. Richards
aXe, lacy Leth alte + R. Fouts P. P. Bapiy

Pig aoss. G. Arnold V. S. abate

J. M. Dusmet A. Handlirsch J. C. Bradley
W. M. Wheeler * I. Micha G. Enderlein
G1, Lyle H. Hacker T. Uchida +

E, A. Elliott H. de W. Marriott H. Habermehl +
A. Crevecoeur F. Maidl Ee. Kongers

W. M. Mann P. Roth W. Hellen +

R. Friese E, Enslin F, X. Williams fF -

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 573

H. von Ihering t A. von Schulthess O. Schmiedeknecht +
A. C. W. Wagner R. B. Benson * IND Neo) | Kouznezoy-
H. Hedicke . H. F. Schwarz Ugamtsky {

H. Bischoff W. V. Balduf * Hes utz

L. Masi D. S, Wilkinson * L. H. Weld *

* In accord with results sought by the petition without having studied
the points involved in the particular case.

{+ Evidently intended to subscribe to this petition, but sheet bearing his
signature was not included in his reply.

< Deceased.

3. The following notes were attached to the foregoing petition :—

(a) Extract from a letter from Dr. S. A. Rohwer to Professor
James Chester Bradley

I cannot sign this and I hope that you will not feel called upon to cir-
culate it, as it is asking the Commission to reverse its opinion. Sucha
petition would imply lack of confidence, and would be in my opinion a
step backward. Should the Commission reverse its opinion, the principle
for which it was founded—namely, stability of nomenclature, would be
seriously jeopardized.

(b) Note by Professor James Chester Bradley

Opinion 32, to which Mr. Rohwer has reference, determined the type of
the genus.Sphex on the basis of the premises submitted. The question of
setting aside the rules and conserving Sphex in the customary sense was
not considered, in fact the Commission at that time would have had no
power to do so. To now ask the Commission to set aside the rules con-
cerning Sphex is not requesting a reversal of its decision. Now that the
type of Sphex under the rules is established, there is point in the further
step of asking the Commission to suspend the rules in the case, an act
which would be futile before it was clear what the type under the rules
actually is. . (J.C.B.)

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

4. This case was circulated to the members of the International
Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in January 1935, when
it was arranged that it and the other Hymenoptera cases sub-
mitted at the same time should be dealt with at the meeting of the
Commission due to be held at Lisbon in September of that year,
by which time the recommendations of the International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature would be available.

5. IThis case was considered by the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in
the second week of September 1935, during the Sixth Interna-
tional Congress of Entomology. The International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature first examined the only objection

1 On this point, see the ‘‘ summary ”’ and paragraphs 5 and (i) of the
present Opinion.

574. OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

that had been lodged against the action. proposed, namely that
that action would involve asking the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature to reverse the decision embodied in
Opinion 32 where they had declared that ‘On the basis of the
premises submitted, sabulosa is the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758.”’
The International Committee, after examining the application in
detail, took note that far from constituting a request that the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature should
reverse their previous decision, the application accepted that
decision as the starting point of the case and, on the basis of that
decision, asked the International Commission to take a decision
on an entirely different question and one which had never pre-
viously been submitted to the Commission for decision. When
the International Commission rendered Opinion 32, which was
published in July 1911, they were acting in virtue of the power
to render Opinions on the interpretation of the International Code
that had been conferred upon them by the Seventh International
Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Boston in 1907. At the
time of the rendering (and publication) of Opinion 32, the Interna-
tional Commission possessed no power to suspend the rules and it
was not until 1913 that at Monaco plenary power to suspend the
rules in certain cases was conferred upon them by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology. The present application was
an application that the International Commission should use
those powers in the case of the names Spex Linnaeus, 1758, and
Ammophila Kirby, 1798, in order to secure that the correct use
of those names should be the use in universal currency prior to the
designation by Fernald (1905) of Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758,
as the type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758. No similar application had
ever been submitted to the International Commission in the case
of these names. Clearly, therefore, no decision which the Inter-
national Commission might take on this application could possibly
reverse any decision previously given. The International Com-
mittee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed therefore that the
objection that the present application involved a request for the —
reversal of Opinion 32 was misconceived and without any valid
force.

6. Having reached this conclusion, the International Committee
on Entomological Nomenclature turned to consider the only two
questions which, in their judgment, arose on the present applica-
tion: (a) Would the strict application of. the rules in the case of
the names Sphex Linnaeus and Ammop/ila Kirby result in greater

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 575

confusion than uniformity? (b) If so, what action should the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature recom-
mend the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
to take under their plenary powers to remedy this situation? As
regards the first of these questions, the International Committee
agreed that the transfer of Sphex Linnaeus to be the name of the
genus for so long called Ammophila Kirby, with the consequent
change in the meaning to be attached to the subfamily name
SPHECINAE, would clearly resuit in greater confusion than uni-
formity. The International Committee agreed therefore that it
was desirable that in this case the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature should make use of their plenary powers
to suspend the rules. On the second of the questions before them,
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature
agreed that, if the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature was prepared in principle to use their plenary
powers in this case, the most satisfactory course would be for
them to set aside all existing type designations for Sphex Linnaeus,
1758, and to designate as the type of that genus some well-known
species which indisputably belonged to the genus Sphex in the
pre-I905 sense. The International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature agreed that, as none of the original Linnean species
satisfied this condition, the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature should be invited to designate as the type of this
genus some species that had not been included in the genus by
Linnaeus.2> The International Committee agreed further that
Sphex flavipennis Fabricius, 1793, satisfied the necessary con-
ditions. The selection of that species as the type of Sphex Linnaeus,
1758, would have the further advantage that it would in effect
confirm the designation of that species as the type of this genus
made (erroneously at that time) by Latreille as far back as 1810.

7. The above and other recommendations adopted by the
International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their
meeting held at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology at the ~ Ca Plenum held at Nee
on 12th September 1935.

2 Farlier at the same Session the International Committee on Entomo-
logical Nomenclature had reached a similar conclusion in regard to a genus
(Satyrus Latreille, 1810) in a different Order (Order Lepidoptera). See
paragraph 9(iii) below.

3 Latreille in 1810 (Consid. gén. Anim. Crust. Avach. Ins. : 438) cited
“ Pepsis flavipennis, Fab.” as the type of Sphex Linnaeus. For the inter-
pretation of this work of Latreille, see Opinion 136 (pp. 13-20 in section A
of the present volume).

A
576 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Ill.—_THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

8. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the rules, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of
Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes.
In these circumstances, the Commission decided at their meeting
held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration
should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in
their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could
properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should
be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might
be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as
this procedure involved taking decisions ‘‘ under suspension of the
rules’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure
had not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly
advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of
the Lisbon Congress and that no Cpinion should be rendered and
published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year
from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched
to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Sphex
Linnaeus, 1758, and Ammophila Kirby, 1796, was one of the cases
in question and was accordingly dealt with by the Commission
under the above procedure.

g. This case was considered by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting held on the afternoon
of Monday, 16th September 1935. At this meeting, the Commis-
sion carefully examined both the petition submitted in this case
(including the note of dissent by Dr. S. A. Rohwer) and the
recommendations in regard thereto submitted by the Interna-
tional Committee on Entomological Nomenclature. In the course
of the ensuing discussion attention was drawn to the following
considerations :— |

(i) the International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature were perfectly correct in concluding that no de-

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 7].

cision that might be taken by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature on the present applica-
tion could reverse the decision embodied in the Commission’s
Opimion 32, since the question dealt with in the present
application was entirely distinct from that dealt with in
that Opinion ;

(ii) if the literature, biological as well as taxonomic, of the
name Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, was looked at as a whole—as
Should be done, in judging an application of this kind—
there was no doubt that greater confusion than uniformity
would result from the strict application of the rules in this
case ;

(iii) if the plenary powers were to be used to designate as the
type of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, some species other than the
species which under the rules is its type (Sphex sabulosa
Linnaeus, 1758), it was essential that the species so selected
should be a well-known species that indisputably belonged
to the genus Sphex Linnaeus in the commonly accepted
meaning of that name (7.e. in the sense universally under-
stood prior to 1905); if none of the originally included
Linnean species satisfied this condition, the most satis-
factory course would be to designate as the type of this
genus some species which did satisfy those requirements
even if for that purpose it was necessary to designate as
the type of this genus some species not included in the
genus by Linnaeus in 1758; it was pointed out that this
would not be the first occasion on which the Commission,
acting under their plenary powers, would have designated
as the type of a genus a species which had not been included
in that genus at the time of its first publication, for at the
present (Lisbon) Session (2nd Meeting, Conclusion 22(c))
the Commission had taken such a decision in the case of
the genus Satyrus Latreille, 1810 (Order Lepidoptera).*

10. At the conclusion of the foregoing discussion, the Interna-
tional Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 3rd Meeting, Conclusion
2) > :—

+ The text of the decision in this case is given in full in 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1: 20-23. The Opinion later rendered to give effect to this
decision is Opinion 142, for which see pp. 67-80 in Section A of the present
volume.

5 Only those portions of Conclusion 2 which refer to the present case are

here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 2, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 : 27-30.

578 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(c) under “‘‘ suspension of the rules ”’ to set aside all type designations for
the undermentioned genera and to declare their types to be the
species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus
(3 3) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Sphex flavipennis Fabricius, 1793,
Nat (ede 10) 1533560 Ent. syst.2 3 201
(34) Ammophila Kirby, 1798, Sphex sabulosa Linnaeus, 1758,
Trans. linn. Soc. Lond. 4: Syst. Nat, (ed. 10) 1 3 569
199
(d) under ‘‘ suspension of the rules”’ to place on the Official List of
Generic Names the sixteen generic names enumerated in (c) above
(names (19) to (34)), each with the type species there indicated ;
(e) to render Opinions in the sense of (a) to (d) above.

11. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 27 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-
day, 18th September 1935, the Commission unanimously agreed
(Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 6) to submit to the
Twelfth International Congress of Zoology. In order to make
perfectly clear to all the members of the Congress that (as ex-
plained in paragraph 9(i) above) the decision taken in the present
case did not involve a reversal of the decision embodied in the
Commission’s Opinion 32, the Commission inserted the following
“note’”’ at the end of paragraph 27 of their report to the Con- -
gress :—

Note. With reference to the names Sphex Linn., and Ammophila Kirby
referred to in paragraph (d) (15) and (16) above,® it should be noted that
the Commission have on a previous occasion (in Opinion 32) declared that
the type of Sphex Linn. is Sphex sabulosa Linn. The Commission remain
of the opinion that that species is the type of Sphex Linn. under the rules,
but in view of the fact that the strict application of the rules in this case
would cause greater confusion than uniformity, they have now agreed to
suspend the rules in the manner shown above.

12. At the same meeting as that at which they adopted their
report to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology, the
Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10)
that Commissioner Karl Jordan (President of the Commission) and
the new Secretary to the Commission, when elected, should be
authorised to make such arrangements and to take such, other
action, aS might appear to them to be necessary or expedient : —

(i) to establish the Secretariat of the Commission at its new head-
quarters ;

(11) to secure the due publication of the Opinions agrecd upon from
time to time by the Commission ;

6 The references given in this ‘“‘ note” are to the sub-paragraphs into
which paragraph 27 of the Lisbon Report was divided. For the full text of

that paragraph, see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 59-60.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 579

_ -.(iii) to give effect to the decisions reached by the Commission at their

Lisbon Session ; —

(iv) to obtain the finance required for the due functioning of the Com-
mission; and generally | .

(v) to secure the effective continuance of the work of the Commission.

13. The report adopted by the Commission on the morning of
Wednesday, 18th September 1935, was unanimously approved by
the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting with the Inter-
national Commission held on the afternoon of the same day. It
was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth International Congress of
Zoology, by which it was unanimously approved and adopted at
the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of Saturday, 21st
September 1935, the last day of the Congress. |

14. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission
at Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph
8 above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of
the journals specified in’the Resolution adopted by the Ninth
International Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco
in March 1913, by which the said International Congress conferred
upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary power to suspend: the rules.as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the rules would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the rules in the
present case, the Commission have received three communications
objecting to the suspension of the rules in this case. The terms of
these communications are as follows :—

(a) Document forwarded under cover of a letter dated 1st March 1937
by Dr. S. A. Rohwer in the name of the Committee on Nomen-
clature of the Entomological Society of Washington

- The first valid type fixation for Sphex Linn. is that by Fernald, 1905, who
named S. sabulosa Linn. as type. The prior designation of Pepsis flavi-
pennis Fabr. by Latreille, 1810, was invalid since that species was not
originally included. Ammophila Kirby also has for its type S. sabulosa
Linn., by designation of Latreille, 1810, and is therefore, under the Rules,
a synonym of Sphex Linn. Fernald’s type designation for Sphex was
upheld by the Commission in Opinion 32,’ which states ‘‘ Unless it can
be shown that some other species has been validly designated at an earlier
date, the designation of sabulosa by Fernald, 1905, is not subject to change.”
With the support of this Opinion workers in different parts of the world

at HOT. a definition of the scope of Opinion 32, see paragraphs 9(i) and 11
of the present Opinion.

580 OPINIONS AND .DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(G. Arnold,® S. Africa; R. E. Turner, England; J. Bequaert,® United
States, and F. X. Williams,* Hawaii) have followed Fernald. Now, how-
ever, it is proposed that the Commission reverse ® its action of thirty years
ago, and under suspension of the Rules, place on the Official List of Generic
Names Sphex Linn., 1758, naming as type Sphex flavipennis Fabr., a species
described twenty-nine years after the genus was established.

We feel strongly that any possible temporary inconvenience resulting
from the recognition of Sphex with sabulosa as type cannot justify such
extreme action. If a previously rendered Opinion should be reversed 1
with no more justification than the satisfaction of certain irreconcilable
opponents any approach to stability in nomenclature would appear
impossible.

(b) Letter dated 28th M arch 1937 received from Dr. Charles D.
Michener, Berkeley, California

I wish to say that it seems to me the suggested use of Sphex and Ammo-
phila (Hymenoptera) is not desirable. This was the usage prior to 1905;
had the rules been suspended then,!! much confusion would have been
avoided. However, the change was made (Fernald, Ent. News, June 1905,
and Proc. U.S.N.M., 1906, 31: 294) and has been accepted, so that for
over thirty years, Chlorion and Sphex have been in use instead of Sphex
and Ammophila. To return to the latter pair would be only to repeat
confusion. Since Chlorion and Sphex are in general use, and are correct
from a standpoint of priority, it seems that they should be used.

I must strongly oppose the proposed suspension of the Rules and the
insertion in the Official List, of the last two items under the heading
““ Hymenoptera ’’ as stated in the “‘ Notice of possible suspension of the
Rules of Nomenclature in certain cases,’”’ dated May 1st 1936 and published
in ‘‘ Science’’ June 5, 1936; viz., suspend the rules and insert in the
Official List with the types as given in parentheses: ‘‘ Sphex Linn., 1758
(Sphex flavipennis Fabr., 1793); Ammophila Kirby, 1798 (Sphex sabulosa
Linn., 1758).”’

These two genera are so related that action on one will necessarily
involve corresponding action on the other.

The genus Ammophila established by Kirby in 1798 included four
species. Three of these have been removed (quite properly) to another
genus, leaving species No. 1, sabulosa, as the genotype by elimination.”
No one has published this, however.

8 It will be seen from paragraph 2 of the present Opinion that this
author’s name is one of those included in the list of signatories of the
petition submitted to the International Commission for the suspension of
the rules in this case.

® This statement is incorrect. It will be seen from paragraph 3(b) of
the present Opinion that this application does not seek to set aside Opinion
32 and from paragraph 11 that its acceptance by the Commission does
involve that consequence.

10 See footnote 9.

11 For the reasons explained in paragraph 5 of the present Opinion,
such action by the International Commission was not within their powers
at the date in question.

12 Genotypes cannot be fixed by elimination under Article 30 of the Code.
In Article 30, there isno mandatory provision relating to ‘‘elimination,”’ which
is cited only as the 4th of 13 criteria which authors are ‘“‘ recommended ”’ to
follow when themselves selecting types under rule (g) in that Article.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I80. 581

The genus Sphex established by Linné, 1758, has had its type fixed by
subsequent designation and this designation was approved 1° by the Inter-
national Commission (Opinion 32). The genotype designated was sabulosa,
the same species as remains in Ammophila as its genotype, as shown above.

The designation of sabulosa as the genotype of Sphex was made in accord-
ance with Article 30 as revised by the Seventh Congress, as follows :

I. Does not apply to this case.
II. (e) Species to be excluded.
(a) Species not included under the generic name when this was
first published. Sabulosa was included.
(8) Species inquirendae. Sabulosa was not such a species.
(y) Species doubtfully referred to the genus. Not true for
sabulosa.
(f) Does not apply.
(g) Fixation of a type by subsequent designation, ‘‘ such designa-
tion is not subject to subsequent change.’’ Type by subse-
quent designation—sabulosa—designated in 1905.

III. Recommendations

(h) With Linnaean genera, select the most common or medicinal
species. No medicinal species. Sabulosa the most common,
with 115 references in Dalla Torre’s Catalogus by far the largest.

(i) Not applicable.

(j) sabulosa is not exotic from the standpoint of the author of the
genus.

(k) Not applicable as all the species known to have been transferred.
To take back the last one transferred (pectinipes) would either
make the present family LARRIDAE become SPHECIDAE and
cause great confusion involving over 1000 species, or else
extinguish SPHECIDAE altogether, making it a subfamily of the
LARRIDAE.

(1) Not applicable.

({m) None of the species are named communis, vulgaris, medicinalts
or officinalis.

(n) sabulosa is the best known and most easily obtainable of the
species.

(o) Not applicable.

(p) Not applicable.

(q) Original description of genus and species published together.

(r) Not applicable.

(s) If the type were to be selected by the “ first species ”’ rule,
No. 1 (argillacea) would be the type. This species has not been
recognized. Iftaken it would throw out SPHECIDAE, SPHECINAE,
SPHECINI, and Sphex from yany use whatever until argillacea
has been rediscovered. If No. 2 be taken under these circum-
stances, it is sabulosa.

(t) sabulosa as species No. 2 has page precedence except for
argillacea.

cé d

Fabricius in his Systema Piezatorum, 1804,14 places in Sphex the Linnaean
sabulosa and adds three other of his own species. This indicates that he

18 The question asked and answered in Opinion 32 was not what species
should be approved as the type of Sphex Linnaeus but what species was in
fact the type of that genus under the Code. See paragraphs 9(i) and 11 of
the present Opinion. :

14 The correct date of this work is [1804-1805]. See Griffin, 1935, in
Richards, Tvans. R. ent. Soc. Lond. 88: 144. The date should be cited in
square brackets, since it is only ascertainable from external sources.

582 -OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

saw the confusion in the species placed under Sphex and purified it by
putting sabulosa as the Linnean species typical of the genus.

From this analysis of the situation sabulosa was selected as the genotype
of Sphex and this selection was approved 15 by Opinion 32 of the Interna-
tional Commission.

Accordingly sabulosa is now the type of Sphex and also of Ammophila.-

The proposal before the Commission is to replace Linné’s genus Sphexz,
1758, by Kirby’s genus Ammophila, 1798. The reasons for this proposal
have not been made public.

If this change were made and the other proposal also approved, Sphex
would become a genus containing none of the original species of Linné
which are not exotic from his standpoint, with the possible exception of
colon, gibba, ignita, aurata, and cyanea which are not given in Dalla Torre’s
Catalogus, Vol. VIII. If given in other volumes (not accessible to me)
they would evidently have been transferred to other genera and hence
would not be available for genotypic consideration. 1

The proposal to make flavipennis Fabr., 1793, the genotype of Sphex
would result in a Linnaean: genus with a Fabrician genotype! Certainly
this would be a somewhat unusual procedure.’

Sphex as it is now placed has been widely accepted and adopted since
the designation of sabulosa as its type. To reverse 1® this now would mean
introducing more confusion to what is now becoming well settled and with
many papers, large and small, treating of these insects as they now stand.

For the above reasons, based on the establishment of the genotypes of
Sphex and Ammophila as outlined above, I must Oppose the PeCRCea to
shift the names of these genera. ;

15. Immediately upon their receipt by the Gomihitions copies
of the documents quoted in paragraph 14 above were communi-
cated (April 1936) to each member of the Commission, but since
that date no member of the Commission has expressed himself as
being in agreement with the representations contained therein.

16. The representations set out in paragraph 14 above were
considered at the Plenary Conference between the President of
the Commission and the Secretary to the Commission convened in
London on 19th June 1939 under the authority of the Resolution
adopted by the Commission at their meeting held at Lisbon on
18th September 1935 (for the text of which see paragraph 12
above). The pie Conference aa Conference, Ist Meet-
ing, Conclusion 9) }%:

(b) examined the communications that had been received during the
prescribed period in regard to the undermentioned genera :—

15 This is not what the Commission did or were asked to do. See foot-
note 13.

16 For a note on the limited extent to which “‘ elimination ”’ is recognised
under Article 30 of the Code, see footnote 12.

17 See paragraph 9(ili) of the present Opinion.

18 See footnote 9. : s

19 Only those portions of Conclusion 9 which ielaee to the Aegan case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 9, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 3 76-77. |

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 583

(ix) Sphex Linnaeus, 1758
(x) Ammophila Kirby, 1798
from the Committee on Nomenclature of the Entomological
Society of Washington; from Charles D. Michener, Berkeley,
California; and from H. T. Fernald, Orlando, Florida;
(c) took note that, although copies of the communications referred to
“aye (b) above had been transmitted to each member of the Com-
mission immediately upon their receipt, no member of the Com-
mission had expressed himself as being in agreement with any of
the representations contained therein ;

-(d) agreed that the communications referred to in (b) above brought

: forward no data and adduced no considerations that had not been
before the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
when at Lisbon in 1935 they approved the recommendations in favour
of the suspension of the rules in these cases submitted to them by
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature in

«resolutions adopted during the meeting of the Sixth International
Congress of Entomology at Madrid in the same year.

(e) agreed that, in view of (c) and (d) above, the proper course for the
present Conference in the discharge of the duties entrusted to it by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (Lisbon
Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion 10) was to give effect to the decisions
in this matter reached by the International Commission at. their
Lisbon Session (3rd Meeting, Conclusion 2) and therefore that
Opinions should be issued as soon as possible in the sense indicated
in paragraph 27 of the report submitted by them to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology and approved and adopted by
that Congress at the Conciltum Plenum held at Lisbon on 21st
September 1935.

17. The present Opinion was concurred in by the twelve (12)

Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the Commission, namely :—

Commissioners :—Calman ; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin ; Peters ;
and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima vice Esaki;
Bradley vice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Arndt vice
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

18. The present Opinion was dissented from by no Commissioner
or Alternate present at the Lisbon Session. Nor since that Session
has any Commissioner who was neither present on that occasion
nor represented thereat by an Alternate indicated disagreement
with the conclusions then reached by the Commission in this matter.

1g. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :— ve 7
Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestri; and Stiles.
- 20. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

584 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution con-
ferring upon the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, plenary
power to suspend the rules as applied to any given case where, in
the judgment of the Commission, the strict application of the rules
would clearly result in greater confusion than uniformity, pro-
vided that not less than one year’s notice of the possible suspension
of the rules as applied to the said case should be given in two or
more of five journals specified in the said Resolution, and provided
that the vote in the Commission was unanimously in favour of the
said suspension of the rules; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the rules is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the present Ofimion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opinion in the terms
of the present Opimion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANCIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me in that behalf by reason of
holding the said Office ofsSecretary to the International Com-
mission, hereby announce the said Ofimion on behalf of the
International Commission, acting for the International Congress
of Zoology, and direct that it be rendered and printed as Opimion
Number One Hundred and Eighty (Opinion 180) of the said
Commission.

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING, Secre-
tary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
have signed the present Opinion,

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I80. 585

DonE in London, this twenty-fifth day of November, Nineteen
Hundred and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain
deposited in the archives of the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

586 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

THE PUBLICATIONS OF THE COMMISSION.

(obtainable at the Publications Office of the Commission at 41,
Oueen's'Gate,London,S:W 7.)

Opinions and Declarations Rendered by the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature.

The above work is being published in three volumes con-
currently, namely :—

Volume 1. This volume will contain Declarations 1-9 (which
have never previously been published) and Opinions 1-133 (the
original issue of which is now out of print). In order that the
volume, when bound, may be of a convenient size for handling,
it has been decided to divide volume 1 into a series of Sections,
which will be continuously paged but will each be supplied with a
title page and index. It is at present contemplated that the
first of these Sections (Section A) will comprise Declarations 1-9
and Opinions 1-29, but no final decision can be taken until it is
possible to estimate more closely than at present the number of
pages required for a volume so composed. An announcement on
this subject will be made as soon as possible.

Parts I-21 (comprising Declarations I-g and Opinions 1-12)
have now been published. Further Parts are in the press and
will be published as soon as possible.

Volume 2. This volume will contain Declarations 10-12 and
Opinions 134-181 and will thus be a complete record of all the
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Lisbon in 1935. This
volume will be published in two Sections, which will be con-
tinuously paged but will each be supplied with a title page and
WOvleae

Section A, comprising Declarations 10-12 and Opinions 134-160
(published in Parts 1-30 and 30 A), is now complete, price
£4 4s. od. Individual Parts of this Section are also obtainable
separately at the-prices at which they were originally published.
~ Section B will comprise Opinions 161-181 (to be published in
Parts 31-52). Parts 31-50 (containing Opinions 161-180) have
now been published and it is hoped that Part 51 (Opinion 181)
and Part 52 (index and title page) will be published shortly.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION 180. 587

Bulletin of Zoological Nomenclature.

This journal was established by the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature in 1943 as their Official Organ in
order to provide a medium for the publication of :—

(a) proposals on zoological nomenclature submitted to the
International Commission for deliberation and decision;

(b) comments received from, and correspondence by the
Secretary with, zoologists on proposals published in the
Bulletin under (a) above; and

Parts 1-7 of volume 1 have now been published. Further
Parts are in the press and will be published as soon as possible.

eg A aj pa is Ne
. ¥ “ay * ;
J Tay)
; ; est
y a ev tank Ss
7” ; 4" : #; wy ee es oe |
. ie as

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 51. Pp. 589-612.

OPINION 181

On the type of the genus Carcharodus Hubner,
[1819], and its synonym Spilothyrus Duponchel,
1835 (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera), genera
based upon an erroneously determined species

LONDON:
Printed by Order of the International Commission on
: Zoological Nomenclature
and
Sold on their behalf by the International Trust for Zoological
Nomenclature at the Publications Office of the Trust
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7

1947
Price four shillings and ten pence

Issued 28th February, 1947

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION

The Officers of the Commission

President : Dr. Karl Jordan, Ph.D., F.R.S. (United Kingdom).
Vice-President : Dr. James L. Peters (U.S.A.).
Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming, C.M.G., C.B.E. (United Kingdom).

The Members of the Commission

Class 1949

Senor Dr. Angel CABRERA (Argentina).

Mr. Francis HEMMING (United Kingdom) (Secretary to the Commission).
Dr. Karl JORDAN (United Kingdom) (President of the Commission).
Dr. Theodor MORTENSEN (Denmark).

Dr. Joseph PEARSON (Australia).

Herr Professor Dr. Rudolf RICHTER (Germany).

Class 1952

Senhor Dr. Afranio do AMARAL (Brazil).

Professor James Chester BRADLEY (U.S.A.).

Professor Ludovico di CAPORIACCO (Italy).

Professor J. R. DYMOND (Canada).

Dr. James L. PETERS (U.S.A.) (Vice-President of the Commission).
Dr. Harold E. VOKES (U.S.A.).

Class 1955

Professor Dr. Hilbrand BOSCHMA (Netherlands).
Dr. William Thomas CALMAN (United Kingdom).
Professor Teiso ESAKI (Japan).

Professor Béla von HANKO (Hungary).

Dr. Tadeusz JACZEWSKI (Poland).

Dr. Norman R. STOLL (U.S.A.).

Secretariat of the Commission :
British Museum (Natural History), Cromwell Road, London, S.W. 7.

Publications Office of the Commission :
41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W. 7.

Personal address of the Secretary :.
83, Fellows Road (Garden Flat), London, N.W. 3.

OPINION 181.

ON THE TYPE OF THE GENUS CARCHARODUS HUBNER,
[1819], AND ITS SYNONYM SPILOTHYRUS DUPONCHEL, 1835
(CLASS INSECTA, ORDER LEPIDOPTERA), GENERA BASED
UPON AN ERRONEOUSLY DETERMINED SPECIES.

SUMMARY.—Under suspension of the Régles Papilio alceae
Esper, [1780], is hereby designated as the type of Carcharodus
Hiibner, [1819], and of its synonym Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera).

I—THE STATEMENT OF THE CASE.

In 1935 Commissioner Francis Hemming prepared for the
consideration of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature a paper dealing with the interpretation of Opinion
‘65 relating to the determination of the types of genera based upon
erroneously determined species, with special reference to certain
genera in the Order Lepidoptera (Class Insecta). One of the
genera in question was Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], and its ©
synonym S#ilothyrus Duponchel, 1835, in the family HESPERIIDAE.

2. The portion of the foregoing paper relating to this genus
reads as follows + :—

(6) CARCHARODUS HUBNER, [1819],2 AND SPILOTHYRUS
DUPONCHEL, 1835

(A) Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819]

Hubner, [1819], Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 110
Pl6tz, 1879, Ent. Zig, Stettin 40 : 179

68. Hiibner placed in this genus three closely allied species (nos. 1189-
I191). He gave a short description of the genus so established, but he

1 The text of the first part of this paper relating to the interpretatiow
of Opinion 65 is quoted in full in Opinion 168 (pp. 411-430 above). The
portions of the second part relating to the types of the other genera dis-
cussed are quoted in Opinions 169 (pp. 431-442) (Lycaeides Hubner),
173 (pp. 483-494 above) (Agviades Hubner), 175 (pp. 509-520 above)
(Polyommatus Latreille), 177 (pp. 533-544 above) (Euchloé Hiibner), and
ae (Pp. 557-508 above) (Princeps Hubner).

2 At the time when the paper from which this is an extract was written,
it was thought (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1 : 16-17) that
Ppp. 65-240 of Hiibner’s Verz. bekannt. Schmett. were published in 1823.
That date was accordingly assigned to the present name. The examina-
tion of Hiibner’s surviving manuscripts has since shown that the correct
date is 1819 (see Hemming, 1937, Hiibnerv 1: 517 and also Opinion 150
(pp. 161-168 in (Section A of) the present volume). This correction has
accordingly been made, wherever necessary, in the extract from Com-
missioner Hemming’s application quoted in the present paragraph.

592 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

specified no type. The first of the included species to be selected as the
type of this genus was species no. 1191, i.e. the species which Hiibner called
Carcharodus malvae Schiffermiller, when in 1879 that species under the
name Papilio alceae Esper was so selected by Plotz.

69. Hiibner’s entry for this species in the Verzeichniss was as follows :—

r191. C. Malvae Schiff. Verz. Pap. A. 1. Hiibn. Pap. 450. 451. Alceae Esp. Pap.
RTbot

70. There is no doubt whatever regarding the species to which Hiibner
intended to refer when making the above entry for species no. 1191 in his
Verzeichniss. Beyond possibility of question it was the ‘‘ Common
Mallow Skipper’ now universally attributed to the genus Carcharodus
Hibner. This is proved by the fact that Hubner ave for this species two
references which unquestionably apply to the ‘‘ Mallow Skipper,’”’ namely
his own figures of that species under the name Papilio malvae (Hubner,
[1800—1803],3 Samml. europ. Schmett.: pl. Pap. 90 figs. 450-451) and the
figure published by Esper under the name Papilio alceae (Esper, [1 ro),
Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts. Tagschmett. : 4 pl. 51 fig. 39).

71. There remains the first of the references cited by Hiibner in the
Verzeichniss, namely the name Papilio malvae as used in the so-called
Vienna Catalogue first published in 1775 and re-issued in a larger edition
(under a slightly different title) in the following year. At that time even
the common species of European HESPERIIDAE were very imperfectly
understood and for some time thereafter authors commonly associated
several allied species as “ varieties’? of some mythical polymorphous
species. Denis and Schiffermiller were, as is well known, particularly
interested in the larval stages of the Order Lepidoptera and it may therefore
certainly be concluded that they assumed that they included the ‘‘ Common
Mallow Skipper ’’ in the species to which they applied the name Papilio
malvae, though they appear to have included that species also under the
new name Papilio fritillum [Denis & Schiffermiller], 1775 (Schmett. Wien :
159 no. A. 3.).4 It ‘is certain in any case that Hiibner considered that
Denis and Schiffermiller had ‘applied the name Papilio malvae to the
“Common Mallow Skipper.”’ |

3 The date here assigned to pl. Pap. 90 of Hiibner’s Sammi. europ.
Schmett. has been corrected for reasons similar to those explained in foot-
note 2. (See Hemming, 1937, Hubner 1 : 229.)

4 In July 1942 Commissioner Hemming furnished the following supple-
mentary note :—

Supplementary note on the identity of Papilio fritillum [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, and
Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761.

Within the last twelve months, the problem of the identity of Papilio fritillum [Denis
& Schiffermiiller], 1775 (Schmett. Wien : 159 no. A. 3) and of Papilio fritillarius Poda,
1761 (Ins. Mus. graec. : 79 no. 53) (which are undoubtedly only different names for the
same species) has been re-examined independently by myself and by Brigadier W. H.
Evans, the well-known authority on the family HESPERIIDAE.

We are agreed that these names do not apply (as I had previously thought) to the
“ Common Mallow Skipper ” (i.e. to Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]), but are names for the
mallow-feeding species of the genus Pyrgus Hiibner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) :
109), commonly known as Pyrgus cartham (Hubner, {r 808-1813]). The synonymy of the
latter species is therefore now seen to be as follows :—

Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, wen
Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. graec. : 79 no. 53 “* Graz.”
Papilio fritillum [Denis & Schiffermiiller], 1775, ‘Schmett. Wien : 159 no. A. 3 “* Wien.”
Papilio carthami Hibner, [1808-1813], Samml. europ. Schmett.: pl. Pap. 143, figs. 7206,
7236 (nec figs. 721- 722) (no locality cited).

A fuller note setting out in detail the synonymy of the various species
involved has since been published by Commissioner Hemming (1943,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 68-69). See also footnote 24.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION ISI. 593

72. What it is important at this stage to note is that Denis and Schiffer-
miller were not—and did not claim to be—the authors of the name
Papiho malvae. They made it quite clear that they were using the name
Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758. It is therefore necessary now to consider
what was the species so named by Linnaeus (1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 3 485
no. 167). Many authors in the 18th century identified this species with
the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper,” though as early as 1780 Esper had taken
the opposite view and had given the name Papilio alceae to the ‘““ Common
Mallow Skipper,’’ which he regarded as being still without an available
name. »Esper’s action was endorsed by Fabricius and the Italian de
Prunner, but the name Papilio alceae Esper did not at that time come into
general use. At the beginning of the 19th century Hoffmansegg (1804,
Mag. f. Insektenk. (illiger) 3 : 198), ignoring Esper’s alceae, gave the name
Papilio malvarum to the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper,” basing that name
upon the figures (figs. 450, 451) published by Hiibner as Papilio malvae.
In spite of the action of Esper and Hoffmansegg, the name Papilio malvae
Linnaeus continued for some time to be commonly applied to the ‘‘ Common
Mallow Skipper,” especially in France, where such leading authors as
Godart, Duponchel and Boisduval continued to use this name in this sense
as late as the fourth decade of the century. Not long after this, however,
Wallengren (1853, Lep. Rhop. scand. : 275) advanced powerful arguments
to show that the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was the small species
of the genus Pyvgus Hubner, [1819], which Hiibner ([1800-—1803], Sammi.
euvop. Schmett. : pl. Pap. 92 figs. 460-467) had figured as Papilio alveolus,
1.e. the species which occurs in England and is there known as the “ Grizzled
Skipper.” > In 1861, this identification of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758,
was accepted by Staudinger (18601, 1m Staudinger & Wocke, Cat. Lep.
Europa’s (1) :15) and in 1871 this view was endorsed by Kirby (1871,
Syn. Cat. diurn. Lep.: 614). These two works exercised a tremendous
influence on students of the Sub-Order Rhopalocera and since their appear-
ance no one has questioned the accuracy of the identification of Papilio
malvae Linnaeus, 1758, with the English “‘ Grizzled Skipper.”

73. In a matter of this kind, however, it is necessary to go back to the
original sources in order to make sure that no error has been made. I
myself therefore re-examined this question when preparing my Generic
Names of the holarctic Butterflies in connection with the genus Pyrgus
Hubner, [1819], of which Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type
(Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1: 165). After the most careful
study of the Linnean descriptions, the references cited by Linnaeus for
this species and the other available evidence bearing on this subject, I
came to the conclusion that there was no doubt in the matter at all and
that the “‘ Grizzled Skipper’ of British entomologists was certainly the
species to which Linnaeus applied the name Papilio malvae in 1758. I
have since prepared a summary of the evidence which led me to this con-
clusion and I attach it to the present paper as Appendix 2.®

° For the most complete and profusely illustrated modern account of the
species referred to here (and throughout the present application and its
annexed Appendix) as the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’, see Warren (B. C. S.),
“ Monograph of the Tribe HESPERIIDI (European species) with revised
classification of the subfamily HESPERIINAE (Palaearctic species) based on
the genital armature of the males ’”’ (1926, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. T4 (1) :
72-78, pl. 24, figs. 1, 3-6, 8-11g4, 79, pl. 25 fig. 1 (¢ genitalia)).

§ Appendix 1 to the paper from which the above paper is an extract
contained examples of genera based upon erroneously determined species.
The classes of case so illustrated are enumerated in paragraph 13 of the
paper referred to above, which is quoted in the “‘ statement of the case ”’
given in Opinion 168 (see page 416 above).

594 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

74. The position is, therefore, that both Denis and Schiffermiller in 1775
and Hiibner in 1819 made an error of identification when they identified
Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, with the ‘Common Mallow Skipper ”’
(= Papilio alceae Esper). This error is most unfortunate since it means
that the genus Carchavodus Hibner, [1819], of which (as shown in para-
graph 68 above) Papilio malvae Linnaeus, Denis & Schiffermiiller, is the
type, is a genus based upon an erroneously determined species. If in this
case the preliminary assumption enjoined by Opinion 65 (namely that
Hiibner correctly identified the species placed by him in the genus Car-
charodus at the time when he founded that genus) were to be maintained in
the teeth of the evidence to the contrary, the result would be as follows :—

(i) the type of Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], would become the true
Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, i.e. the species of the genus Pyrgus
Hubner, [1819], known to British entomologists as the ‘‘ Grizzled
Skipper,”’ notwithstanding the fact :— :

(a) that the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was not included
by Hiibner in the genus Carcharodus Hubner, [1819], but was
placed by that author in the genus Pyvgus Hiibner, [1819] (on
p. 109 the page immediately preceding that on which the
name Carcharodus was printed), where it appeared as species
no. 1176 under the name Pyvgus alveolus Hibner ;

(b) that, in selecting the type of the genus Carvchavodus Hubner,
Pl6tz, by using the specific trivial name alceae Esper (cited
by Hibner as a synonym of “ C. malvae Schiff.’’), indicated in
the clearest possible way that he intended the type of this
genus to be the ‘‘Common Mallow Skipper ’”’ and not the
“Grizzled Skipper’’ (= the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus,
1758) ; |

(ii) the generic name Cayvcharodus Hiibner, [1819], and also the generic
name Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835 (see paragraph 77 below) would
become objective synonyms of the generic name Pyrgus Hubner,
[1819], since the true Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, is the type of
the last-named genus (Hemming, 1934, Gen. Names hol. Butt. 1:165),
while the false Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, i.e. the species mis-
identified by Denis and Schiffermiller and by Hubner, is the type
of the two first-named genera;

(iii) Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], and its allies, which for over a hundred
years have been referred to the genus Carchavodus Hubner, [1819]
(except by those relatively few authors who have used the name

._Spilothyvus Duponchel, 1835), would. need to be attributed to the
genus Reverdinus Ragusa, 1919 (Nat. sicil. 23 (7/12) : 172), of which
Papilio altheae Hubner, [1800-1803]? (Samml. europ. Schmeit. :
pl. Pap. oo figs. 452-45329) is the type, having been so selected
by Lindsey in 1925 (Ann. ent. Soc. Amer. 18 : 100).

75. The consequences described above would be an absurdly heavy price
to pay for the privilege of maintaining the admittedly erroneous assumption
that Hiibner correctly identified the species placed by him in the genus
Carchavodus Hiibner. ‘This is, therefore, a clear case where the preliminary
assumption enjoined in Opinion 65 should be discarded and the second
part of that Opinion should come into play, that is to say, the case of the
generic name Cayrchavodus Hiibner, [1819], should be submitted, with full
details, to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature for
decision.

76. I accordingly, recommend that the International Commission on
Zoological Nomenclature should render an Opinion under their plenary
powers declaring that the type of Carcharodus Hibner, [1819], is the

* For the date assigned to Hiibner’s pl. Pap. 90, see footnote 3.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 595
species referred to in this paper as the ‘Common Mallow Skipper” (=
Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]) and not the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ”’ (= the true
Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758). As stated elsewhere (1932, Tvans. ent. Soc.
Lond. 80 : 293-294), I consider that the oldest available name for the
“Common Mallow Skipper ” is Papilo fritillarius Poda, 1761.8

(B) Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835

Duponchel, 1835, 7 Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. France Suppl. 1 (Diurnes) : 415
Watson, 1893, Proc. zool. Soc. Lond. 1893 : 67

77. Duponchel placed in this genus (on page 416) three species, namely
(i) what he regarded as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, (11) Papiho altheae Hubner,
and (iii) Papilio lavatherae Esper (which he misspelt Javatevae). These are
the same three species as those which Hiibner included in the genus
Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819] (paragraph 68 above), if it is assumed that
Duponchel identified Papilio malvae Linnaeus in the same way as Hiibner
did in the Verzeichniss. That this assumption is correct is immediately
evident from an inspection of Duponchel’s book, (a) because that book is
no more than a supplement to that of Godart in which the ‘“‘ Common
Mallow Skipper’’ and not the “ Grizzled Skipper’’ was identified as
Papilio maivae Linnaeus, 1758, and (b) because Duponchel (on page 415)
placed the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper,’’ under the specific trivial name alveolus
Hubner (paragraph 72 above), in the genus Syvichius Boisduval, 1834.

78. From the three species placed in the genus Spilothyrus by Duponchel, |
Watson selected the first as the type. In doing so, Watson indicated in
the clearest way the species which he intended should be the type of this
genus, for he used for this purpose the name Papilio alceae Esper.

79. In these circumstances it is evident that whatever decision is taken
in regard to the generic name Carchavrodus Hubner, [1819], must govern
also the generic name Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835. I accordingly ask the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to include in the
proposed Opinion a declaration that the “‘ Common Mallow Skipper ’’ and
not the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ is the type of Spilothyvus Duponchel, 1835.
That genus will thereupon become de juve what it has always been treated
as being since Watson’s selection of Papilio alceae Esper, [1780] as the type,
-namely an objective synonym of Carchavodus Hiibner, [1819].

IEP DINIDID.G 0
On the identity of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758
By Francis Hemming, C.B.E.

(a) Introductory

Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 485 no. 167) is now
accepted by all authors as being the small species of the genus Pyrvgus
Hubner, [1819] (Verz. bekannt. Schmeit. (7) : 109) which occurs in England
and is there known as the “ Grizzled Skipper ’”’ (e.g. the species described
and figured under the name Hesperia malvae (Linnaeus) by South, 1906,
Butt. Brit. Isles : 184-186 pl. 122 figs. 1-3, 7¢g, 4-60, 899).

2. This identification of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, has been uni-
versally accepted by all authors at least since 1861 (Staudinger, 1861, in
Staudinger & Wocke, Cat. Lep. Europa’s (1): 15). In the earlier part of

8 This question has since been re-examined by Commissioner Hemming,
who has furnished the supplementary note reproduced in footnote 4. A
more extended note showing that the oldest available name for the species
referred to here as the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper ” is Papilio alceae Esper,
[1780], and not Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, has been, published by
Commissioner Hemming, in 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 68-60.

® For a note regarding the document which formed Appendix 1 to the
paper from which the above is an extract, see footnote 5.

596 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

the 19th century, however, the name Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, was
identified with the species now usually known as Cayrchavodus alceae
(Esper, [1780]) by such leading French authors as Duponchel (1844, Lat.
méth. Lépid. Europe : 37), Boisduval (1829, Europ. Lepid. Index meth. :
26 and 1840, Geneva Index meth. europ. Lepid. : 35) and Godart (1820,
Lépid. France 1: 243; 1823, Table méth. Lépid. France : 64; and [1824]
Ency. méth. 9 (2) (Ins.) : 779). Im the second half of the 18th century
(when even the common European species of the family HESPERIIDAE were
very little understood) this name was widely used for C. alceae (Esper) by
many German authors.

3. The problem of the type of the genus Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819]
(Verz. bekannt. Schmett. (7) : 110) turns on the identity of Papilio malvae
Linnaeus, 1758, and I have thought it desirable, in submitting proposals in
regard to that generic name to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature, to summarise in the present note the available evidence in
regard to this subject.

(b) The original description of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758

4. The description given by Linnaeus in 1758 for Papilio malvae is as
follows :—
Papilio Plebejus [printed at the top of the page)

Malvae. 167. P. P. alis denticulatis divaricatis nigris albo maculatis.
fin. svec. 749. Tt. oel. 3.
IEDs Aphon Uo BOA tts Se Roeés. ins. 1. pap. 2. t. 10
Merian. eur. 1. t. 48. Wilk. pap. 54. t. 2..¢. 1.
RCAUIN INS. b. Lf 2 O. Fi
Habitat in Malva, Althaea.

5. Before attempting to interpret Linnaeus’s description of Papilio
malvae, it is necessary to recall the following important considerations
which must always be borne in mind when interpreting descriptions in
Linnaeus’s systematic works :—

(a) So far as possible Linnaeus always based his descriptions upon
actual specimens and on the few occasions when he was unable to
do so, he was careful to indicate the fact by placing a cross sign
(called by Linnaeus “‘ Signum Crucis ’’) at the end of the description.
An example is provided in the toth edition of the Syst. Nat. in the
butterflies by the description of Papilio nestor (: 463 no. 30). Lin-
naeus’s own description of this convention reads as follows (Syst.
Nat. (ed. 12) 1 (2) : 1019 nota) :-—

Signo Crucis ubique notavimus animalia nobis nec viva, nec in museis asserata
visa, ut Naturae consulti ad ea attentius examinanda incitentur.

(b) Linnaeus underlined in ink in his copy of the 12th edition of the
Syst. Nat. the serial number allotted to each species of which he
possessed a specimen in his own collection (Verity, 1913, /. linn.
Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32:174). It is thus possible, when examining
the Linnean collection, to ascertain as regards any given species
whether Linnaeus possessed a specimen and therefore whether a
Linnean specimen should be looked for in that collection.

(c) Whenever Linnaeus had himself published a description of a given
species in one of his pre-binominal works (i.e..in any of his works
published prior to 1758), he gave a reference to that work in the roth
edition of the Syst. Nat. Such references were invariably placed by
Linnaeus immediately after the conclusion of the description. These
references were often printed on the same line as the last words of
the description; where this was not done, they were invariably
printed before, and on a higher line than, references to works by

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 597

other authors. Linnaeus clearly intended to indicate by this means
that he attached a special degree of importance to these references
to his own works. Their importance lies in the fact that they are
first-hand references to works written by himself and refer, in the
case of Swedish species, to species known to himself and in many
cases to species collected by himself. The possibility of misidenti-
fications in such cases is thus reduced to the minimum. Unlike
the references discussed in (d) below, these references by Lannaeus to
his own works must therefore be regarded as ‘‘ primary references.”
(d) The references given by Linnaeus in the toth edition of the Syst.
ie 7 clow the) | primary, neterences 7) (ii ‘amy)) are references) to
plates in works published by other authors prior to 1758, representing,
as Linnaeus believed, the species described and named by Linnaeus
in that work. Not infrequently, however, the plates so cited repre-
sent some species other than that intended by Linnaeus. These
errors.may sometimes have been due to genuine mistakes on the
part of Linnaeus, but somé were due to an entirely different cause and
; one which has been frequently overlooked, namely the fact that some
at least of these references were taken by Linnaeus at second-hand
from notes communicated to him by correspondents who had access
to works (or to parts of works) that were not available to Linnaeus
himself. Linnaeus made no secret of his practice of citing references
which he had not been able himself to verify and in the 1st edition
of the Fauna svecica (1746) (last page of the Ratio Operis) he expressly
invited readers to furnish him with such references from the works
of Reaumur, Rajus, Frisch, etc. The passage in question reads :
“ Qui synonyma plura ex Reaumuril, Raji, Frischii, &c. scriptis mihi
communicaverit, rem faciet multo mihi acceptissimam.”’

Such “‘ secondary references ’’ to the works of other authors stand
therefore in a very different position from the “‘ primary references ”’
discussed in (c) above. They are useful in many ways and should
be studied with care; they should however be accepted with reserve
and, where errors of identification are found in these “‘ secondary
references,’’ those errors taken by themselves provide no ground for
assuming that Linnaeus himself was guilty of having misidentified a
species or of having confused two different species together. Such
errors may just as well have been made by some correspondent who
had forwarded the reference to Linnaeus, by whom through force of
circumstances it had been accepted second-hand without verification.
(e) In the roth edition of the Syst. Nat. Linnaeus usually cited ‘‘ second-

ary references’ in double columns. It has been usual to interpret
these references as though those in the left-hand column were the
1st, 3rd, 5th, etc., references in the list and those in the right-hand
column the 2nd, 4th, 6th, etc., references. A careful comparison of the
“ secondary references ”’ cited by Linnaeus for a given species (1) in
the roth edition of the Syst. Nat., where these references are in double
column, and (ii) in the 12th edition, where they are in a single column,
shows, however, that Linnaeus regarded the references in the left-
hand column as all preceding those in the right-hand column.

(d) Analysis of the references cited by Linnaeus in his original description of
Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758
6. In the light of the general considerations indicated in paragraph 5 (c)
to (e) above, the references cited by Linnaeus in his original description of
Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, are seen to be the following :—
(A) “ Primary references ”’

(1) Fn. svec. 749 [a misprint for 794].
(2) EEO Ae

598 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(B) ‘‘ Secondary references ”’
CL) ee. ae ts 26.57.70,
(2) Merian. eur. 1. t. 48.
(3) Reaum. ims. 1.7%. 11. f. 6.7.
(4)(FRROeS. tS Pap. 2) bloOr
(5) Wilk. pap. 54. ¢. 2: ¢. 1.

(e) “‘ Primary veferences’”’ cited by Linnaeus in his original description of

Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758

7. The citation of the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica as a ‘‘ primary
reference ’’ shows that the species which Linnaeus was describing was a
species known to him as occurring in Sweden.

roy | lakes primary reference” ‘‘J¢. oel.” is an abbreviation of “ Iter
oelandicum,”’ the latinised title of the work published by Linnaeus in Swedish
im 1745 under the title ‘‘Olandska och Gothlandska Resa pa Riksens
hdgloflige standers befallning f6rrattad ahr 1741.’’ This work contains an
account of the journey to Oland, Gotland and other places in Southern
Sweden undertaken by Linnaeus in 1741 at the request of the Swedish
Government. This journey was started from Stockholm on 15th May (Old
Style) 1741; on the same day the party crossed into the Province of
Sodermanland. On the following day, 16th May (O.S.) 1741, the party did
some collecting at Trosa and it was here that they captured the butterfly to
which 17 years later Linnaeus gave the name Papilio malvae.

9g. Both these “‘ primary references ’’ clearly establish that the insect
which in 1758 Linnaeus described as Papilio malvae was an insect taken in
Sweden.

(f) “‘ Secondary veferences’”’ cited by Linnaeus in his original description of
Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758

10. Penver. The figure cited) represents the |" Grizzledyoikippem aac:
the small species of the genus Pyvgus Hubner, [1819], now universally
identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (see paragraph 1 above).

11. Merian. The plate represents the species commonly known as
Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]).1°

12. Reaumur. ‘The figures cited represent Carcharodus alceae (Esper,
[1780]).

13. Rdsel. Linnaeus cited plate 10 without giving any figure references
and it must therefore be assumed that he treated all the figures on that
plate as referring to this species. Two species are represented on this
plate. Apart from figures 1.and 2, which represent larvae, and figures 3 and
4, which represent pupae, figures 5 and 6 represent Carcharodus alceae

10 When this paper was originally written, this species (the ““ Common
Mallow Skipper ’’) was referred to at this point by Commissioner Hemming
as Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761. As explained in footnote 8, it has now
been shown that the above identification was incorrect and that the oldest
available name for this species is Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]. At the same
time Commissioner Hemming has shown that the name Papilho fritillarius
Poda, 1761, is the oldest available name for the species previously known as
Pyreus cavthami Hibner, [1808-1813]. In order to avoid further confusion
in the use of these names, the name Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]) has
been substituted here and elsewhere in the ‘‘ statement of the case”’ for the -
name Carcharodus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) previously erroneously applied
to this species. Similarly, the name Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) has
been substituted for Pyrgus carthame (Hubner, [1808-1813]), wherever the
latter name appeared in the “‘ statement of the case’ as the name for the
“Mallow Pyrgus.”’

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 599

(Esper, [1780]), and figure 7 represents Pyrgus fritillavius (Poda, 1761), i.e.
the species commonly known as Pyrgus carthami (Hubner, [1808—1813]).™

14. Wilkes. Wilkes merely copied Roésel’s figures of C. alceae (Esper,
[1780]) and P. fritillarius (Poda, 1761) (= P. carthami (Hibner, [1808-
1813])); both are referred to on page 54 of his work (the page referred to
by Linnaeus), the former as No. 1, the latter as No. 2.

15. Of the five “‘ secondary references ’’ discussed above, no. (5) (Wilkes)
may be ignored as it is nothing but a direct copy from no. (4) (Rédsel). As
regards the remainder, the position is seen to be as follows :—

acterence) no, (1) (Petiver)) 1s to the) Grizzled Skipper; 7 ie. to the
Species now universally identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758
(see paragraph 1 above) ;

(ii) references nos. (2) (Merian), (3) (Reaumur), and part of (4) (Résel)
are to the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper,”’ i.e. ue the species commonly
known as Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780]).™

(iii) part of reference no. (4) (R6sel) is to the ‘“‘ Mallow Pyrgus,”’ i.e.
to the species now commonly known as Pyrgus carthami (Hubner,
[1808-1 813]). 33

(g) Evidence afforded by the Linnean diagnoses and descriptions of Papilio
malvae Linnaeus, 1758

16. The earliest diagnosis for this species published by Linnaeus is that
which appeared in 1745 in his Oldndska och Gothlandska Resa (“ primary
reference no. (2)) (see paragraph 8 above). This diagnosis, which was
written for the specimen taken by him at Trosa in the Swedish Province of
Soedermanland on 16th May (O.S.) 1741, reads as follows :—

Papilio hexapus alis divaricatis denticulatis nigris albo punctatis.

17. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus in 1746 for species no. 794 in the
1st edition of the Fauna svecica (‘‘ primary reference’ no. (1)) is identical
with the diagnosis given by Linnaeus in 1745 for the insect taken at Trosa
in 1741. On this occasion, Linnaeus added the following fuller descrip-
tion :— .

DESCR. Magnitudo Argi 803. Corpus totum & alae supra nigro fuscae; Alae
maculis parvis seu punctis quadratis, albis, numerosi adspersae sunt a parte exteriori,
margine quasi dentato, interiacentibus maculis albis. Corpus & Alae subtus griseo-
cinereae; alae ipsae subtus maculis albis difformibus inaequalis magnitudinis.
Antennae clavatae, supra fuscae, subtus albidae, periolis annulis minimis albis. Alae
erectae non sunt, sed divaricatae, fere uti Phalaenae quercifolia dicta.

11 For the most complete and profusely illustrated modern account of
the species referred to throughout the “ statement of the case’”’ as the
““Mallow Pyrgus,” i.e. the species of which the oldest available name is
Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) but which is better known by its synonym
Pyrgus carthami (Hibner, [1808—-1813]), see Warren (B. C. S.), “‘ Mono-
graph of the tribe HESPERIIDI (European species) based on the genital
armature of the males ”’ (1926, Tvans. ent. Soc. Lond. 74 (1) : 64-72, pl. 15,
fig. 6 (¢ genitalia), pl. 22, figs. 1-64, pl. 23, figs. 1-699, 7-129).

12 As will be seen from footnote 8, it has now been ascertained that the
name Carcharodus alceae (Esper, 1780) is, in fact, the oldest available name
for the species referred to throughout the “‘ statement of the case’ as the
“ Common Mallow Skipper.”’

18 As shown in footnote 4, the oldest available name for the ‘‘ Mallow
Pyrgus”’ is Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) and not Pyrgus carthami
(Hubner, [1808-1813]) as commonly believed at the time when the present
case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature.

600 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL
This description can only apply to the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper,’’ i.e. to the
Pyrgus species now universally identified as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758
(see paragraph 1 above).

18. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus for Papilio malvae in 1758, when he
first published that binominal name is identical with that given in 1745 for
the Trosa insect and in 1746 for the same species when it appeared as
species no. 794 in the ist edition of the Fauna svecica, except that at the
end the word “ maculatis ’’ is substituted for the word “‘ punctatis.’’ In
this connection, it will be noted that in the longer description published in
1746 Linnaeus had used the words macula and punctum as alternative
descriptions for the small square white markings on the upperside of the
wings of this species.

19. Three years later Linnaeus published a further diagnosis and descrip-
tion of this species (Linnaeus, 1761, Faun. svec. (ed. 2) : 285 no. 1081).
The diagnosis so given is identical with that given in 1745 for the Trosa
insect and in 1746 for the same species when it appeared as species no. 794
in the tst edition of the Fauna svecica. The last named work is cited as a
‘primary reference’ (~ Fx.794)... Lhe longer’ descripuonenzenyay,
Linnaeus for this species on this occasion is identical with that in the rst
edition of the Fauna svecica, except that in the description of the antennae
the word “‘ periolis ”’ is omitted.

20. The diagnosis given by Linnaeus for Papilio malvae in 1758 could
properly be applied either to the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ (paragraph 1 above)
or to the “ Mallow Pyrgus”’ i.e. Pyvgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761) (=
Pyrgus carthami (HWibner), [1808-1813] 44). It could not reasonably be
regarded as applicable to the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper,”’ 1.e. Cavcharodus
alceae (Esper), !4 (a) because the word niger is not an appropriate description
of the ground colour of the upperside and (b) because the phrase “ albo
maculatis’’ is not one which can be held to apply to a species such as this
in which the markings on the forewings are insignificant and tend to be
confluent, while the hindwings are devoid altogether of such markings. The
diagnosis given by Linnaeus for this species in'1758 is (as noted above)
identical (except for one word) with that given by Linnaeus in 1746
(Fauna svecica) and in 1745 (Iter oelandicum) to a specimen of a species
taken by himself in Sweden. This locality eliminates from consideration
both the ‘“‘ Mallow Pyrgus’’ and the ‘‘ Common Mallow Skipper,” neither
of which occur in that country. The fuller description given for this
species in the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica in supplement to the brief
diagnosis clearly applies only to the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper.’’ The same is true
also of the corresponding description given by Linnaeus for this species in the
2nd edition of that work (1761).

(h) Evidence afforded by the name selected by Linnaeus for this species and
the habitat cited by him for it

21. The trivial name (malvae) given by Linnaeus to this species in 1758
may be taken as implying a belief on his part that this species was associated
in some way with the mallow (Malva). It is perfectly fair to conclude that
Linnaeus considered that the mallow was the food-plant for the larva of
the species to which he gave the name Papilio malvae.

22. Linnaeus gave no indication in 1745 of the habitat of the insect
taken at Trosa in 1741, but, when redescribing that species in 1746 (in
the 1st edition of the Fauna svecica), he gave the indication ‘‘ Habitat primo
vere in Pratis.’?’ In 1758, when he’first applied the name Papilio malvae
to this species, Linnaeus substituted for this entry the words ‘‘ Habitat in
Malva, Althaea.’’ Three years later (in 1761 in the 2nd edition of the
Fauna svecica), Linnaeus dropped this indication and repeated the habitat
cited by him for this species in the ist edition of that work. In the 12th

14 See footnote Io.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I81. 601

edition of the Syst. Nat. (1 (2) : 795 no. 267) published in 1767 Linnaeus
again used the formula employed in 1758. '

23. The “ Grizzled Skipper,” i.e. the small species of the genus Pyrgus
Hiibner, [1819], now universally identified with Papilio malvae Linnaeus,
1758, has no connection whatever with the mallow. .On the other hand,
the ““ Common Mallow Skipper ”’ (= Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780] 15)),
figures of which were cited as ‘‘ secondary references ’’ in Linnaeus’s original
description of Papilio malvae (see paragraph 15(1i) above) is closely asso-
ciated with the mallow. Its larva feeds upon that plant and the imago is
never found far from it. The association of this species with the mallow
was known both to Merian (‘‘ secondary reference’ (2)) and to Rosel
(“ secondary reference ’’ (4)) and this piece of information may (and prob-
ably did) come to Linnaeus from one or other of these sources, for there is
no evidence to show that Linnaeus knew Carcharodus alceae (Esper) }°
either in nature or in the museum. ‘The third species included among
Linnaeus’s ‘“‘ secondary references ” in his original description of Papilio
malvae, namely the ‘‘ Mallow Pyrgus,”’ i.e. Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda, 1761)
(= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner 15)) (paragraph 15(iii) above) is also asso-
ciated with the mallow, but there is no evidence to show that this fact was
known to Linnaeus.

24. The evidence afforded by the trivial name (malvae) applied to this
species by Linnaeus in 1758 and by the “‘ habitat ”’ assigned to this species
on that occasion, taken in conjunction with the “‘ secondary reterences ”’
(2), (3) and (4) (but not “‘ secondary reference ”’ (1)) suggest that Linnaeus
was then describing the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper ”’ (= Carcharodus alceae
(Esper) 15) and not the “‘ Grizzled Skipper.’’ The same evidence would
have pointed also to the possibility that Linnaeus was then describing the
“Mallow Pyrgus,”’ i.e. Pyrvgus fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus carthami
(Hibner)), which, jointly with Carcharodus alceae (Esper),1° was cited by
him in “‘ secondary reference ’’ (4), if there had been any evidence to show
that Linnaeus was aware of the connection of the last-named species with
the mallow plant.

(i) Evidence afforded by the type locality of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758

25. Linnaeus cited no locality for this species when he named it in 1758,
but (as shown in paragraph 6 above) he then cited two “ primary references”’
for this species and each of these references is to a description of a Swedish
specimen. Both these descriptions are based upon the same specimen, as
is shown by the fact that the diagnosis in the two works (the ist edition of
the Fauna svecica and the Iter oelandicum) is word for word the same. In
the earlier (i.e. the last-named) of these works it is stated that the specimen
from which the diagnosis was drawn was taken by Linnaeus’s party at
Trosa in the Swedish Province of Soedermanland on 16th May (O.S.) 1741
(paragraph 8 above). This must therefore be accepted as the type locality
of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758.

26. Of the three species to figures of which Linnaeus gave “‘ secondary
references ”’ in his original description (1758) of Papilio malvae under that
binominal name, the “ Grizzled Skipper’”’ (paragraph 1 above) occurs
commonly in Sweden. Neither of the other species, Carcharodus alceae
(Esper) and Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner)), 15
occurs in that country. The type locality therefore eliminates both these
species from further consideration.

(j) Evidence afforded by the Linnean collection now in the possession of the
Linnean Society of London

27. As shown in paragraph 5(b) above, Linnaeus marked his copy of the

12th edition of the Syst. Nat. to show, as regards the Order Lepidoptera,

15 See footnote ro. 16 See footnote Io.
1” The Linnean collection of specimens of the Order Lepidoptera was

602 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

which species were represented in his collection. Papilio malvae Linnaeus,
1758, was one of the species so marked (Jackson, 1913, Cat. linn. Spec.
Amphib. Ins. Test. : 30). |

28. Verity (1913, J. linn. Soc. Lond. (Zool.) 32 : 173-174) has shown that
Linnaeus’s own specimens in the Linnean collection can with care be dis-
tinguished from later additions by Smith by the nature of the pins used and
the way in which the wings are set. Heshas shown also (ibid. 32 : 190) that
the Linnean collection contains one Linnean specimen of Papilio malvae
Linnaeus, 1758, and that this specimen is a male of the “‘ Grizzled Skipper,”’
i.e. of the small species of the genus Pyvgus Hiibner now universally identi-
fied as Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758 (paragraph 1 above). Neither
Carcharvodus alceae (Esper) nor Pyrgus fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus car-
thami (Hiibner)) is represented in the Linnean collection.

(k) Analysis of available evidence regarding the identity of Papilio malvae
Linnaeus, 1758
29. The following is an analysis of the available evidence regarding the
identity of Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758, discussed in the preceding
paragraphs :— .

The “ Grizzled The “‘ Mallow
Skipper,”’ i.e. The ‘“‘ Common Pyrgus,”’ i.e.
the species of the | Mallow Skipper,’’ | Pyvrgus fritillarius

i.e. Carcharodus

Nature of evidence

Evidence provided by

the two “primary re-
ferences ”’ cited by Lin-

genus Pyrgus
Hubner now uni-
versally identified
as Papilio malvae

Linnaeus, 1758
(see paragraph 1)

applicable to this

species, because it
occurs in Sweden

alceae (Esper, [1780])

(see paragraph 11
and footnote 10)

inapplicable to

this species, be-
cause it does not

(Poda, 1761) (=

Pyrgus carthami

(Hiibner, [1808-
1813))

(see paragraph 13

and footnote 10)

inapplicable to this

species, because it
does not occur in

naeus in 1758: occur in Sweden Sweden

(Both show that Papilio
malvae Linnaeus was de-
scribed from a Swedish
specimen and the earlier
of the two works (‘“‘ [ter
oelandicum ”’) shows
that the original speci-
men (i.e. the type) was
taken at Trosa in the
Swedish Province of
Sé6dermanland on 16th
May (O.S.) 1741)

(paragraphs 7-9 & 25-26)

evacuated during the war on grounds of security to the Zoological Museum,
Tring. While there, the collection was carefully re-examined by Dr. A.
Steven Corbet, Assistant Keeper, Department of Entomology, British
Museum (Natural History), in conjunction with Mr. W. H. T. Tams,
Assistant Keeper in the same Department. This re-examination fully
confirmed the conclusions reached by Dr. Roger Verity in 1912, both Dr.
Corbet and Mr. Tams being of the opinion: (1) that it is possible by the
various means noted by Dr. Verity to distinguish the specimens which were
placed in the collection by Linnaeus himself from those added to it after his
death, and (2) that the collection in its present state affords ‘‘ no evidence
of the label-changing attributed by many authors to Sir James Edward
Smith, M.D., who purchased the Linnean collections on the death of
Linnaeus’s son and subsequently became the first President of the Linnean
Society of London.’”’ See Corbet (A. S.), 1942, Proc. R. ent. Soc. Lond.
(B) 11 : 91-94.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE.

OPINION I8I. 603

Nature of evidence

Evidence provided by

the four ‘‘ secondary
references’ cited by
Linnaeus in 1758
(paragraphs 10-15)

The diagnosis published
by Linnaeus for this
species in 1758
(paragraphs 16-20)

The description at-
tached to the diagnosis
by Linnaeus in 1746 in
the non-binominal first
edition of the Fauna svec.
and repeated in 1761
in the binominal second
edition of that work
(paragraphs 17, 19-20)

The trivial name “‘ mal-
vae’’ applied by Lin-
naeus to this species,
indicating its reputed
association with the
Mallow plant

(paragraphs 21, 23-24)

The habitat cited by
Linnaeus for this species
In 1758

{paragraphs 22-24)

Evidence provided by
the Linnean collection
preserved in the Mus-
eum of the Linnean
Society of London
(paragraphs 27-28)

The ‘‘ Grizzled
Skipper,” i.e. the

species of the genus | Mallow Skipper,”’i.e.

Pyrgus Hiibner
ow universally
identified as
Papilio malvae
Linnaeus, 1758

(see paragraph 1)

reference (I) re-
fers to this species

(paragraph Io)

applicable to this
species
(paragraph 20)

not appropriate
for this species
(paragraph 23)

not applicable to
this species
(paragraph 23)

a male of this
species bearing a
Linnean label is
preserved in the
Linnean collection

The ‘‘ Common

Carcharodus alceae
(Esper, [1870])
(see paragraph 11
and footnote 10)

references (2) and
(3) and the first
part of reference
(4) refer to this
species

(paragraphs 11, 12
and 13)

not applicable to
this species
(paragraph 20)

appropriate for
this species and
known to be so by
Linnaeus, if he
had read _ either
Merian or Réosel,
to each of whose
works he gave a
“secondary re-
ference ”

(paragraphs 23-24)

applicable to this
species and known
to be so by Lin-
naeus, if he read
either Merian or
Rosel, to each of
whose works he
gave a “ second-
ary reference ”’

(paragraphs 23-24)

no specimen in the
Linnean collec-
tion

(paragraph 28)

The “* Mallow
Pyeeuss 146.
Pyrgus fritillarius
(Poda, 1761) °
(= Pyrgus carthami
(Hubner, [1808—
1813]))

(see paragraph 13
and footnote 10)

the second part of

reference (4) refers
to this species

(paragraph 13)

applicable to this
species
(paragraph 20)

not applicable to
this species
(paragraph 20)

appropriate for this
species; but there
is no evidence to
show that Linnaeus
was aware of this
fact _

(paragraphs 23-24)

applicable to this
species; but there
is no evidence to
show that Linnaeus
was aware of this
fact

(paragraphs 23-24)

no specimen in the
Linnean collection
(paragraph 28)

30. The foregoing analysis shows that there are three species to which
the name Papilio malvae might conceivably have been applied by Linnaeus

in 1758, namely :—

(x) the “ Grizzled Skipper,’ now universally identified with Papilio
malvae Linnaéus, 1758 (paragraph 1 above) ;

604 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

(2) the ‘“‘ Common Mallow Skipper,” Carcharodus alceae (Esper, [1780])
(see paragraph 11 above and footnote Io) ;

(3) the “‘ Mallow Pyrgus,”’ Pyrgus fritillavius (Poda, 1761) (= Pyrgus
carthami (Hiibner, [1808—-1813])).

31. The trivial name given to this species and the habitat assigned to it —
suggest that the species was either Carcharodus alceae (Esper) or Pyrgus
fritillarius (Poda) (= Pyrgus carthami (Hiibner)) 1% and this conclusion is
supported by the fact that figures of both these species were included among
the “ secondary references” cited by Linnaeus in 1758. The second of
these species can however be eliminated from further consideration, since
there is no evidence to show that Linnaeus was aware, or could have been
aware, of the association of this species with the mallow, since the first
record of this observation was made long after Linnaeus’s time.

32. The problem resolves itself therefore into the question whether the
species named Papilio malvae in 1758 was the “ Grizzled Skipper ’”’ or
Carcharodus alceae (Esper).18 The evidence shows that Papilio malvae
Linnaeus, 1758, occurs in Sweden; the “ Grizzled Skipper ”’ does occur in
that country, but Carcharodus alceae (Esper) 18 does not. The diagnosis
given by Linnaeus in 1758 fits the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ perfectly but only
with the greatest difficulty can it be argued that it fits Carcharodus alceae
(Esper).1® The longer description given by Linnaeus for this species in
1746 (‘‘ primary reference ”’ (1)) is a clear and (judged by the standards of
the times) an adequate description of the ‘‘ Grizzled Skipper’’ and is
entirely inapplicable to Carcharodus alceae (Esper).1® Finally, the Linnean
collection contains one of Linnaeus’s own specimens labelled ‘“‘ Papilio
malvae’”’ and this is a specimen of the “‘ Grizzled Skipper’; there is no
specimen of Carcharodus alceae (Esper) 18 in the Linnean collection.

33. It is impossible to disregard this mass of evidence provided by the
writings of Linnaeus and by the evidence of his own collection, even though
some (but not all) of the “‘ secondary references ’’’ point to an opposite
conclusion. In the case of a conflict of this kind, the evidence directly
afforded by the author of the species himself must be regarded as having
far greater weight than indications derived from references cited by that
author to the works of other naturalists especially in the case of an author
like Linnaeus who (by his own admission) was forced by circumstances to
rely at times for references to such works upon second-hand evidence
communicated to him by correspondents (paragraph 5(d) above).

34. The conclusion to be drawn from a survey of all the available evidence
is therefore that the universal practice of the last eighty years is undoubtedly
correct and that the species described by Linnaeus in 1758 as Papilio
malvae is the small species of the genus Pyvgus Hiibner, [1819], known in —
England as the “‘ Grizzled Skipper ’’ (paragraph 1 above).

Il.—THE SUBSEQUENT HISTORY OF THE CASE.

2. The questions raised in Commissioner Hemming’s paper
were considered by the International Committee on Entomological
Nomenclature at their meeting held at Madrid in September 1935
during the Sixth International Congress of Entomology. The
International Committee unanimously agreed to recommend the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature to render

18 See footnote 10.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 605

an Opinion clarifying the meaning of Opinion 65 in the manner
proposed.4® Having reached this conclusion on the general
question involved, the International Committee examined the
particular cases in the Order Lepidoptera submitted in the same
paper. The International Committee on Entomological Nomen-
clature considered. that, if (as they had agreed to recommend) the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed to
render an Opinion clarifying Opinion 65 in the manner proposed
in the petition, the only possible course as regards the genus
Carcharodus Hiibner, [1819], and its synonym Sfilothyrus Dupon-
chel, 1835, would be for the International Commission to render
an Opinion declaring that Papilio alceae Esper, [1780],° to be the
type of both these genera. The International Committee con-
sidered also that great advantage would be served if at the same
time the International Commission were to make it clear that
Hubner and Schiffermiiller, on whose judgment in this matter
Hubner had relied, were in error in identifying Papilio alceae
Esper 7° with Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758. The International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature agreed therefore to
recommend the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature to proceed in this way under their plenary powers.

4. The above and other resolutions adopted by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at their meeting held
at Madrid were confirmed by the Sixth International Congress of

19 For a full account of the subsequent history of the portion of this
petition relating to the interpretation of Opinion 65 and the decision of the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature thereon, see Opinion
168 (pp. 411-430 above).

20 As explained in footnote Io, it was erroneously believed at the time
when this case was submitted to the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature that the oldest available name for the ‘“ Common Mallow
Skipper ’’ was Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, whereas it is now known that
that name is properly applicable to the species referred to in the present
Opinion as the “‘ Mallow Pyrgus,” i.e. the species hitherto known as
Pyrgus carthami ,(Hibner, [1808-1813]). In consequence, it is now seen
that the familiar name Papilio alceae Esper, [1780], is the oldest available
name for the ‘““ Common Mallow Skipper,”’ the species universally accepted
as the type of the genus Carchavodus Hiibner, [1819]. So far as concerns
the name of this species, this case was considered by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at its meeting held at Madrid
in 1935 on the basis of the premises submitted. Accordingly in formulating
their recommendations for the consideration of the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, the International Committee on
Entomological Nomenclature then accepted the name Papilio fritillarius
Poda, 1761, as being the oldest available name for the “‘ Common Mallow
Skipper.’’ In order to avoid further confusion, this error has been cor-
rected in the record of the conclusions reached by the International
Committee on Entomological Nomenclature at Madrid in 1935 set out in
paragraph 3 of the present Opinion.

606 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

Entomology at the Concilium Plenum held at Madrid on rath
September 1935.

III—THE CONCLUSION REACHED BY THE INTERNA-
TIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMEN-
CLATURE.

5. When the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature met at Lisbon immediately after the close of the Sixth
International Congress of Entomology in September 1935, they
found themselves confronted with a large number of cases involv-
ing proposals for the suspension of the Régles, in respect of some of
which advertisements had not been published or, if published, had
not been published for the prescribed period, owing to the illness of
Dr. C. W. Stiles, Secretary to the Commission, or for other causes.
In these circumstances the Commission decided at their meeting
held on the morning of Monday, 16th September 1935 (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 9), that immediate consideration
should be given to all cases submitted to the Commission that, in
their judgment, had reached the stage at which a decision could
properly be taken; that the By-Laws of the Commission should
be suspended during the Lisbon Session to such extent as might
be necessary to give effect to this decision; and that, in so far as
this procedure involved taking decisions “‘ under suspension of the
rules ’’ in cases where the prescribed advertisement procedure had
not been complied with, the cases in question should be duly
advertised as soon as might be practicable after the conclusion of
the Lisbon Congress and that no Ofimion should be rendered and
published thereon until after the expiry of a period of one year
from the date on which the said advertisement was despatched
to the prescribed journals for publication. The case of Carcharodus
Hiibner, [1819] (and its synonym Sfzlothyrus Duponchel, 1835),
was among the cases in question and was accordingly dealt with
under the above procedure.

6. At the same meeting as that referred to above (Lisbon
Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion 23), the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature agreed upon certain clari-
fications of Opinion 65 in regard to the status of genera based upon
erroneously determined species (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting,
Conclusion 23 (a) and (c)).21_ Having thus cleared the ground
regarding the principles involved, the Commission proceeded —

21 See footnote 19.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 607

to consider the present and certain other cases in the Order
Lepidoptera and the resolutions in regard thereto submitted by
the International Committee on Entomological Nomenclature.
After careful consideration of the present case, the International
Commission agreed (Lisbon Session, 2nd Meeting, Conclusion
23 (b) and (c)) 24 :-—

{b) in the light of (a) above, to suspend the rules in the case of the under-
mentioned genera and to declare the types of the genera in question
to be the species indicated below :—

Name of genus Type of genus

(6) Carcharodus Hubner, [1819],22 Papilio alceae Esper, [1780],
Verz. ber. Schmett. (7):110 Die Schmett. 1 (Bd. 2) Forts.
and LTagschmett.: 4 pl. 51 fig. 39 24

Spilothyrus Duponchel, 1835, (the species misidentified as

im Godart, Hist. nat. Lépid. Papilio malvae Linnaeus, 1758,
France Suppl. 1 (Diurnes): by Schiffermiiller & Denis, 1775,
415 and by Hitbner and Duponchel)

47. The foregoing decisions were embodied in paragraph 29 of
the report which at their meeting held on the morning of Wednes-

22 Only. those portions of Conclusion 23 which relate to the present case
are here quoted. For the full text of Conclusion 23, see 1943, Bull. zool.
Nomencl. 1 3 23-25.

23 See footnote 2.

#4 For the reasons explained in footnote 20, the name assigned to the
“ Common Mallow Skipper ”’ at the time when this case was brought before
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature at their meeting
held at Lisbon in 1935 was Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, that name being
then (erroneously) believed to be the oldest available name for this species.
At the same time, the International Commission realised that they were
handicapped on that occasion both by the small amount of time available for
discussion and by the lack of works of reference; they accordingly decided
that after the close of the Lisbon Congress when the necessary works of
reference would be available the whole of the references included in the
report which they then submitted to the Twelfth International Congress
of Zoology should be examined and any necessary corrections made before
their report was officially published (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Con-
clusion 1(c)) (see 1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl.1: 44). It was in the discharge
of the duty so imposed that Commissioner Hemming found that the identi-
fication of Papilio fritillarius Poda, 1761, with the “Common Mallow
Skipper ”’ was erroneous and that in consequence the oldest available name
for that species was the well-known name Papilio alceae Esper, [1780]. In
accordance with the decision taken by the International Commission at
Lisbon, this correction was thereupon made both in the report submitted
by the Commission to the Twelfth International Congress of Zoology (see
1943, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 1 : 62) and in the Official Record of Proceedings of
the Commission at their Lisbon Session (see 1943, 1bid.1: 25). At thesame
time, a full explanatory note was published setting out the corrected
synonymy of the species concerned (see 1943, 1bid. 1 : 08-60).

608 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

day, 18th September 1935 (Lisbon Session, 5th Meeting, Conclusion
6), the Commission unanimously agreed to submit to the Twelfth
International Congress of Zoology. That report was unanimously
approved by the Section on Nomenclature at its joint meeting
with the International Commission held on the afternoon of the
same day. It was thereupon submitted to the Twelfth Interna-
tional Congress of Zoology by which it was unanimously approved
and adopted at the Concilium Plenum held on the afternoon of
Saturday, 21st September 1935, the last day of the Congress.

8. In accordance with the decision taken by the Commission at
Lisbon in regard to their procedure at that Session (paragraph 5
above), this case was duly advertised in 1936 in two or more of the
journals specified in the Resolution adopted by the Ninth Interna-
tional Congress of Zoology at its meeting held at Monaco in March
1913, by which the said International Congress conferred upon
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature
plenary powers to suspend the fégles as applied to any given case
where, in the judgment of the Commission, the strict application
of the Régles would clearly result in greater confusion than uni-
formity. In the period that has elapsed since the advertisement
in the said journals of the proposed suspension of the FRégles in the
present case, no communication of any kind has been addressed
to the International Commission objecting to the issue of an
Opimion in the terms proposed. |

g. The present Ofimion was concurred in by the twelve (12)
Commissioners and Alternates present at the Lisbon Session of
the International Commission, namely :-—

Commissioners :—Calman; Hemming; Jordan; Pellegrin;
Peters; and Stejneger.

Alternates :—do Amaral vice Cabrera; Ohshima wice Esaki;
Bradley wice Stone; Beier vice Handlirsch; Aendiycze
Richter; and Mortensen vice Apstein.

11. The following five (5) Commissioners who were not present
at Lisbon nor represented thereat by Alternates did not vote on
the present Opinion :—

Bolivar y Pieltain; Chapman; Fantham; Silvestti; and Stiles.

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. 609

1z. At the time when the vote was taken on the present
Opinion, there was one (I) vacancy in the Commission consequent
upon the death of Commissioner Horvath.

IV.—AUTHORITY FOR THE ISSUE OF THE PRESENT
OPINION.

WHEREAS the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its
meeting held at Monaco in March 1913 adopted a Resolution
conferring upon the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature plenary power to suspend the Régles as applied to .
any given case where, in the judgment of the Commission, the
strict application of the Régles would clearly result in greater
confusion than uniformity, provided that not less than one year’s
notice of the possible suspension of the Régles as applied to the
said case should be given in two or more of five journals specified
in the said Resolution, and provided that the vote in the Com-
mission was unanimously in favour of the proposed suspension of
the Régles; and

WHEREAS the suspension of the Régles is required to give valid
force to the provisions of the pLeeen Opinion as set out in the
summary thereof; and

WHEREAS not less than one year’s notice of the possible sus-
pension of the fégles as applied to the present case has been given
to two or more of the journals specified in the Resolution adopted
by the Ninth International Congress of Zoology at its meeting
held at Monaco in March 1913; and

WHEREAS the vote in the Commission at their Lisbon Session
was unanimously in favour of the issue of an Opznion in the terms
of the present Opinion ;

Now, THEREFORE,

I, FRANcIS HEMMING, Secretary to the International Com-
mission on Zoological Nomenclature, acting in virtue of all and
every the powers conferred upon me by reason of holding the
said Office of Secretary to the International Commission, hereby
announce the said Opinion on behalf of the International Com-
mission, acting for the International Congress of Zoology, and
direct that it be rendered and printed as Opinion Number One
Hundred and Eighty One (Opinion 181) of the said Commission.

610 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY THE INTERNATIONAL

In faith whereof I, the undersigned FRANCIS HEMMING,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature, have signed the present Opinion.

DonE in London, this first day of December, Nineteen Hundred
and Forty Three, in a single copy, which shall remain deposited
in the archives of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature.

FRANCIS HEMMING

COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE. OPINION I8I. O11

APPEAL FOR FUNDS

The International Trust for Zoological Nomenclature earnestly
appeal to all institutions and individuals interested in the develop-
ment of zoological nomenclature to contribute, according to their
means, to the Special (Publications) Fund established for financing
the publication of the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. Additional donations are urgently needed to enable
the Trust to secure that there shall be no interruption in the
Publications Programme of the International Commission.

Already since the ending of the war, there has been a noticeable
increase in the rate at which new applications have been received
_ by the International Commission from zoologists. The Commission
welcome this development and intend to do everything in their power
to deal promptly with all such applications, but, if they are to succeed
in so doing, they will need to receive active assistance from all
institutions and individual zoologists who are in a position to
contribute towards the funds of the Commission.

Contributions of any amount, however small, will be most
gratefully received and should be sent to the International Trust
at their Publications Office, 41, Queen’s Gate, London, S.W.7.
All such contributions should be made payable to the “ International
Trust for Zoological Nomenclature or Order ’’ and crossed “‘ Account
payee. Coutts & Co.’’.

SIGNED ON BEHALF OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

FRANCIS HEMMING
Secretary to the International Trust for
Zoological Nomenclature.

International Trust for

Zoological Nomenclature,
Publications Office,
41, Queen’s Gate, LONDON, S.W.7.

Ist February, 1947

6I2 INTERNATIONAL: COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL ‘NOMENCLATURE.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS RENDERED BY
THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

Index to Section B of Volume 2

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS

Part 52 containing the indexes and title page for Section B of
Volume 2 of the work Opinions and Declarations rendered by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature will be
published as soon as possible.

FRANCIS HEMMING

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

Secretariat of the Commission,
at the British Museum (Natural History),
Cromwell Road, LONDON, S.W.7.

ist February, 1947.

PRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY RICHARD CLAY AND COMPANY, LTD.,
BuNGAY, SUFFOLK.

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, CM.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission
VOLUME 2. Part 52. Pp. 613—628

DIRECTION 2

Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of
certain scientific names dealt with in Opinions 161 to 181

JUL 9- 1964

LONDON :

Price Six Shillings

Issued 21st May, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 2

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y..,
U.S.A.) (2th August 1953)

Vice-President: Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (12th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most_recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (1st January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmania Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th
June 1950)» M

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950) ‘

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg
Frankfurt a. M., Germany) (Sth July 1950) ‘

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitét
zu Berlin, Germany) (5th July1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-
President)

ONE J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August
1953

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) ;

Professor Béla Hanko (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York
N.Y., U.S.A. (12th August 1953) 4

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th
August 1953) ;

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-
lands) (A2th August 1953)

DIRECTION 2

ADDITION TO THE °° OFFICIAL LISTS ” AND “* OFFICIAL
_ INDEXES ” OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC NAMES DEALT
WITH IN ‘ OPINIONS ” 161 TO 181

RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic names
dealt with in the Opinions severally specified below are
hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as Names Nos. 758 to 760 respectively :—(a)
Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 (gender : masculine) (type species,
by selection by Reuss (1928): Papilio niphe Linnaeus,
1767) (this generic name ruled under the Plenary Powers as
being not available for use in preference to Argynnis
Fabricius, 1807 (type species: Papilio paphia Linnaeus,
1758) but available for use by any specialist who does
not consider the type species of these two genera to
be congeneric with one another) (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera) (Opinion 161); (b) Symphaedra Hiibner,
1818 (gender: feminine) (type species, by selection by
Scudder (1875): Symphaedra alcandra Hibner, 1818)
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (this generic name
ruled under the Plenary Powers as not being available
for use in preference to Euthalia Hiibner, [1818] (type
species : Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777], but available
for use by any specialist who does not consider the type
species of these two genera to be congeneric with one
another) (Opinion 167); (c) Princeps Hiibner, [1807]
(gender : masculine) (type species, by designation under
the Plenary Powers: Papilio demodocus Esper, [1798])
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (for use by specialists
who may consider that the type species of this genus is
not congeneric with Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758, the
type species of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758) (Opinion 179).

(2) The under-mentioned specific names dealt with in
the Opinions severally specified below are hereby placed

616 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology as Names
Nos. 183 to 193 respectively :—(a) paphia Linnaeus, 1758,
as published in the combination Papilio paphia (specific
name of type species of Argynnis Fabricius, 1807) (Class
Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 161) ; (b) hyperbius
Linnaeus, 1763, as published in the combination Papilio
hyperbius (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion
161); (c) minutator Fabricius, 1798, as published in the
combination Jchneumon minutator (specific name of type
species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of
Bracon Fabricius, [1804—1805] (Class Insecta, Order —
Hymenoptera) (Opinion 162); (d) pulcher Fabricius,
1798, as published in the combination Pompilus pulcher
(specific name of type species, by designation under
the Plenary Powers, of Pompilus Fabricius, 1798)
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 166); (e)
lubentina Cramer, [1777], as published in the combination
Papilio lubentina (specific name of type species of Euthalia
Hiibner, [1819]) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)
(Opinion 167); (£) nais Forster, 1771, as published in
the combination Papilio nais (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera) (Opinion 167); (g) sulcatus Jurine, 1807,
as published in the combination Ceraphron sulcatus
(specific name of type species, by designation under the
Plenary Powers, of Ceraphron Jurine, 1807) (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 174); (h) brevi-
pennis Latreille, |1802—1803], as published in the com-
-bination Proctotrupes brevipennis (specific name of type
species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of
Proctotrupes Latreille, 1796) (Class Insecta, Order Hymen-
optera) (Opinion 178); (i) demodocus Esper, [1798], as
published in the combination Papilio demodocus (specific
name of type species, by designation under the Plenary
Powers, of Princeps Hiibner, [1807] (Class Insecta, Order
Lepidoptera) (Opinion 179); (j) flavipennis Fabricius,
1793, as published in the combination Sphex flavipennis
(specific name of type species, by designation under the
Plenary Powers, of Sphex Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta,
Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 180); (k) sabulosa
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Sphex
sabulosa (specific name of type species, by designation

DIRECTION 2 617

under the Plenary Powers, of Ammophila Kirby, 1798)
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 180).

(3) The under-mentioned generic names or reputed
generic names dealt with in the Opinions severally specified
below are hereby placed on the Official Index of Rejected
and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos.
162 to 166 respectively :—(a) Psammochares Latreille,
1796, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)
(Opinion 166) ; (b) Pompilus, all uses of, prior to Pompilus
Fabricius, 1798, as suppressed under the Plenary Powers
for the purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the
Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)
(Opinion 166) ; (c) Limnas Hubner, [1806], as suppressed
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those
of the Law of Homonymy (Class Insecta, Order Lepidop-
tera) (Opinion 171); (d) Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], as
suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 174) ;
(ec) Serphus Schrank, 1780, as suppressed under the
Plenary Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 178).

I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT
* DIRECTION ”

The present Direction contains the second instalment of
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature under the General Directive given to it by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that
it should review the Rulings given in all its previous Opinions for
the purpose of placing on the various Official Lists and Official
Indexes scientific names dealt with in those Opinions and the

618 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

titles of books similarly dealt with. The first instalment of
decisions so taken by the Commission—in Direction 1—was con-
cerned with the codification of the Rulings given in Opinions 182
to 194 (the last thirteen of the pre-Paris Opinions), which formed
the opening portion of volume 3 of the work Opinions and
Declarations rendered by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature. Thus, on the publication of Direction 1 (1954,
Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 3 : 401—416), the codifica-
tion of the Rulings given in the Opinions included in volume 3
was complete, and the International Commission was able to
turn its attention to the codification of the Rulings given in the
Opinions (Opinions 134—181) contained in volume 2 of the above
work, which, though complete in other respects, still lacks a
Subject Index. In order to secure that, during the process of
codification, there shall be at all times a solid bloc of Opinions,
the Rulings given in which have been codified, it was decided
to codify the Opinions comprised in volume 2 in the reverse
order from that in which they were published. The present
Direction contains codifications of twenty-one of the Opinions
comprised in volume 2. Under the arrangement described above,
these Opinions are Opinions 161 to 181.

2. On 12th February 1954, Mr. Hemming, as Secretary,
submitted to the International Commission for its consideration
the following Draft Direction embodying his proposals for the
codification, in accordance with the decision of the Paris Congress,
of the Rulings given by the Commission in its Opinions 161 to
181 :-—

DRAFT DIRECTION

Addition to the ‘‘ Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official Indexes ’’ of certain
scientific names dealt with in ‘‘ Opinions ’’ 161—181

The following scientific names dealt with in Opinions 161 to 181
are hereby added to the Official Lists and Official Indexes noted below,
in accordance with the General Directive issued to the International
Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, that it should insert in the foregoing Lists and Indexes entries

DIRECTION 2 619

relating to generic and specific names dealt with in Opinions rendered
prior to the Paris Session :—

OPINION 161: (1) The following entry is to be made on the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology : Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 (type species,
by selection by Reuss (1928, Int. ent. Z. 22: 146): Papilio niphe
Linnaeus, 1767 (this generic name not to be used in preference to
Argynnis Fabricius, 1807, but available for those specialists who do
not consider Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767, to be congeneric with
Papilio paphia Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Argynnis Fabricius,
1807). (2) The following entries are to be made in the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) paphia Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the combination Papilio paphia ; (b) hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763, as
published in the combination Papilio hyperbius.

OPINION 162: The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology: minutator Fabricius, 1798, as
published in the combination [chneumon minutator. |

OPINION 163: The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology : corus Fabricius, 1793, as published
in the combination Papilio corus.

OPINION 166: (1) The following entries are to be made in the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :
(a) Psammochares Latreille, 1796 (suppressed for the purposes of the
Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) ; (b)
Pompilus, any uses of prior to Pompilus Fabricius, 1798 (suppressed
for the purposes of both the Law of Priority and the Law of Homonymy).
(2) The following entry is to be made in the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology : pulcher Fabricius, 1798, as published in the com-
bination Pompilus pulcher.

OPINION 167: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology : Symphaedra Hubner, 1818, Zutr.
z. Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : 7 (type species, by Scudder (1875, Proc.
Amer. Acad. Arts Sci., Boston, 10: 272): Symphaedra alcandra
Hubner, 1818, ibid. 1: 7, pl. 1, figs. 1, 2) (this generic name not to be
used in preference to Euthalia Hubner, [1819], but available for those
specialists who do not consider Symphaedra alcandra Hiibner, 1818,
to be congeneric with Papilio lubentina Cramer, [1777]). (2) The
following entries are to be made in the Official List of Specific Trivial
Names in Zoology : (a) lubentina Cramer, [1777], as published in the
combination Papilio lubentina ; (b) nais Forster, 1771, as published
in the combination Papilio nais.

OPINION 171: The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Limnas

620 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Hiibner, [1806] (for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for
those of the Law of Homonymy).

OPINION 174: (1) The following entry is to be made on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : Ceraphron
Panzer, [1805] (suppressed for the purposes both of the Law of Priority
and of the Law of Homonymy). (2) The following entry is to be made
in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : sulcatus Jurine, 1807,
as published in the combination Ceraphron sulcatus.

OPINION 178: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology: Serphus
Schrank, 1780 (suppressed for the purposes of the Law of Priority
but not for those of the Law of Homonymy). (2) The following entry
is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :
brevipennis Latreille, [1802—1803], as published in the combination
Proctotrupes brevipennis.

OPINION 179: (1) The following entry is to be made in the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology : Princeps Hubner, [1807] (type species
by designation under the Plenary Powers) Papilio demodocus Esper,
[1798] (for use by specialists who may consider that the type species
of this genus is not congeneric with Papilio machaon Linnaeus, 1758,
the type species of Papilio Linnaeus, 1758). (2) The following entry
is to be made in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : demo-
docus Esper, [1798], as published in the combination Papilio demodocus.1

OPINION 180: The following entries are to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology: (a) flavipennis Fabricius, 1793,
as published in the combination Sphex flavipennis; (b) sabulosa
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Sphex sabulosa.

3. The following explanatory notes were submitted to the
Commission at the same time as the Draft Direction reproduced
in the immediately preceding paragraph. The purpose of these
notes was twofold :—{1) to explain why no action was required
on certain of the Opinions numbered 161 to 181; (2) to draw
attention to the provisional or otherwise incomplete character
of the decisions recorded in certain of these Opinions, in con-
sequence of which further action by the Commission was required —

1 The only reason why it was not here proposed that the name Orpheides Hubner,
[1819] (a junior objective synonym of Princeps Hubner, [1806]) dealt with in
this Opinion should be placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology was that this action had already been taken in the
Ruling given in Opinion 270 (in the press).

DIRECTION 2 621

before the names dealt with in those Opinions could be placed
on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes :—

Notes on Points arising on ‘‘ Opinions ’’ 161—181

Note 1: (a) The nominal species Papilio niphe Linnaeus, 1767, dealt
with in Opinion 161, is treated by all specialists as a junior subjective
synonym of Papilio hyperbius Linnaeus, 1763. Accordingly, it is,
under the regulations, the latter name and not the former which is due
to be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (b) The
addition to the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the name
Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, is necessary under the regulations that, where
owing to differences in taxonomic opinion some authors accept one
genus but others consider that two should be recognised, both names
are to be placed on the Official List, an explanatory note being added
in the case of the later published name (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 237,
268).

Note 2: Opinions 164, 168 and 172 are concerned with interpretations
of the Rég/es and no action is called for at the present time in connection
with these Opinions.

Note 3: Opinion 165 contains a purely negative decision, and. it will
be necessary shortly to consider what affirmative action is required.
A paper on this subject will be submitted to the Commission as soon
as possible (File Z.N.(S.) 802).

Note 4: The cheironym Pompilus Schneider, 1784, dealt with in
Opinion 166, is not proposed for addition to the Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology, for this action has
already been taken in Opinion 233, now in the press. The latter
Opinion records the comprehensive decision taken by the Commission
in regard to the status of names published by Schneider in 1784 (1950,
Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 586).

Note 5: The addition to the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
of the name znais Forster, 1771, as published in the combination
Papilio nais, proposed in connection with Opinion 167 is recommended
for reasons similar to those explained in Note 1 (b).

Note 6: Opinion 169 is one of a number of Opinions where the only
reason why proposals for the addition of the names there dealt with
are not now submitted is that the required action has already been
taken in Opinions prepared in connection with decisions on individual
cases reached by the Commission in Paris : argyrognomon Bergstrasser,
[1779], as published in the combination Papilio argyrognomon, in

622 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Opinion 269 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 480) ; Lycaeides Hiibner, [1819],
in Opinion 270 (ibid. 4 : 484).

Note 7: The decision in Opinion 170 was of a temporary stop-gap
nature and it is necessary now that the Commission should take an
appropriate affirmative decision. A paper on this subject will be
submitted to the Commission as soon as possible (File Z.N.(S.) 803).

Note 8: (a) The Paris Congress decided that, where, as in the case
dealt with in Opinion 171, a name is suppressed under the Plenary
Powers solely for the purpose of validating some other name of later
date, that suppression is to be limited to the purposes of the Law of
Priority, the name so suppressed to retain its rights under the Law of
Homonymy ; the purpose of this decision was to prevent the suppres-
sion of a name for one purpose having the accidental effect of upsetting
some other name already replaced on the ground that it was a junior
homonym of the name to be suppressed (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 339).
(b) The name caricae Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Papilio caricae, referred to in this Opinion has already been placed on
the Official List in Opinion 232 now in the press (Bull. zool. Nomencl.
4: 458).

Note 9: All the names dealt with in Opinions 173, 177 and 181 have
been placed on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes in
Opinion 270. See also in the same Opinion, Orpheides Hiibner, [1819],
has been placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology.

Note 10: (a) It is not proposed that the name icarus Rottemburg,
1775, as published in the combination Papilio icarus, dealt with in
Opinion 175, should now be placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology, this being a question which is under separate
consideration (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 485) (File Z.N.(S.) 805). (b)
The name Polyommatus Latreille, 1804, has been placed on the Official
List in Opinion 260 now in the press (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 484).

Note 11: It is not at present proposed that the names dealt with in
Opinion 176 should be placed on the Official Lists ; a separate paper
on this subject will be submitted later (File Z.N.(S.) 804). —

I1l—DECISION OF THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL
NOMENCLATURE

4. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(54)6: Concurrently with the
submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction reproduced

DIRECTION 2 623

in paragraph 2 above and the explanatory notes reproduced in
paragraph 3 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper
V.P.(54)6, was issued under the One-Month Rule. In this
Voting Paper each Member of the Commission was asked (1) to
state whether he agreed “that, in conformity with the General
Directive relating to the recording on the various Official Lists
and Official Indexes of decisions in regard to particular names
taken by the Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International
Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, the entries recording such decisions taken in Opinions
161 to 181 specified in the Draft Direction submitted by the
Secretaiy simultaneously with the present Voting Paper, should
be made, as proposed, in the Official Lists and Official Indexes
concerned ”’, and (2), if he did not so agree as regards any given
item, to indicate the item concerned.

5. Correspondence between the Secretary and Commissioner
L. B. Holthuis in regard to the proposal for the codification of the
names dealt with in “‘ Opinion”? 167 submitted in Voting Paper
V.P.(54)6: In a letter dated 16th February 1954, Commissioner
L. B. Holthuis raised a point in connection with the proposal
in the enclosure to Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 in relation to the
codification of the decisions given in the Ruling by the Commission
in Opinion 167. The point raised by Commissioner Holthuis
and later by Commissioner H. Boschma was that, whereas in
this Opinion both the name Symphaedra Hiibner and the name
Euthalia Hubner had been treated as having been published in
1819, it was proposed in the Draft Direction annexed to Voting
Paper V.P.(54)6 that the name Symphaedra Hiibner should be
treated as having been published in 1818, i.e. in the year prior
to the publication of the name Euthalia Hiibner, which it was still
proposed should be treated as having been published in 1819.
In a letter dated 14th March 1954, Mr. Hemming explained that
this difference was due solely to the fact that since the Lisbon
(1935) Session at which the Ruling incorporated in Opinion 167
was adopted, the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, by liberalising the provisions of Article 25 had
rendered available the name Symphaedra Hiibner as published
in 1818 jn the first volume of the Zutrdge zur Sammlung exotischer
Schmetterlinge. This generic name therefore now ranked from
the Zutrdge of 1818, instead of (as previously) from the Verzeichniss

624 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

of 1819. Mr. Hemming added that, in his view and in that of
Mr. N. D. Riley, this change in the date to be attributed to the
name Symphaedra Hubner did not in any way effect the substance
of the decision taken by the Commission in Lisbon, namely to
secure, through the use of the Plenary Powers, that the well-
known generic name Euthalia Hubner should not be replaced by
the name Symphaedra Hubner, a name which, when used, had
always been employed for a single species (its type species), and
then only by those specialists who regarded that species as
generically separable from the large group of species habitually
placed in the genus Euthalia. In letters dated 23rd and 29th
March 1954 respectively Commissioners Holthuis and Boschma
expressed themselves as completely satisfied with the explanations
given in the letter referred to above but asked that in the Direction
codifying Opinion 167 an explicit statement should be inserted
“explaining the changes that occurred since the adoption of
Opinion 167, so that any zoologist can understand the discrepan-
cies between the two Opinions’’. In accordance with this request
Mr. Hemming’s letter to Dr. Holthuis of 14th March 1954 is
attached to the present Direction as an appendix.

6. Withdrawal of the proposal relating to the codification of the
Ruling given in “ Opinion” 162: On 25th March 1954, Mr.
Hemming, as Secretary to the Commission, executed the following
Minute withdrawing the proposal for the codification of the
Ruling given in Opinion 162, which he had included in the Draft
Direction relating to the codification of the Rulings given in
Opinions 161 to 181: “‘ On re-checking the proposals submitted
with Voting Paper V.P.(54)6, I find that the proposal submitted
for the codification of the Ruling given in Opinion 162 is not
required, for the specific name corus Fabricius, 1793, as published
in the combination Papilio corus (the only name included in that
proposal), has already been placed on the Official List of Specific
Names in Zoology in the Ruling given in Opinion 232, now in the
press, embodying a decision taken by the Commission in Paris
in 1948 to suppress certain generic names (including the generic
name Euploea) published by Illiger in 1807 in senses different
from those applied to these names by Fabricius later in the same
year (1950, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 452—459). I accordingly
now withdraw the proposal on this subject submitted with
Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 ”’.

DIRECTION 2 625

7. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting
Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed
Voting Period closed on 12th March 1954.

8. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)6: The
‘state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(54)6 at the close of the
prescribed Voting Period was as follows :—

(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following eighteen
(18) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes
were received) :

Lemche ; Holthuis ; Vokes ; Hering ; Dymond ; Riley ;

Boschma; Bonnet; do Amaral; Bradley (J.C.);

Esaki; Mertens; Hemming; Sylvester-Bradley ;
~Hanko ; Jaczewski; Pearson; Stoll;

(b) Negative Votes :

None ;

Cabrera.

9. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 30th March 1954, Mr.
Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission, acting as
Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper V.P.(54)6,
signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were as set out in paragraph
8 above and declaring that the proposal submitted in the foregoing
Voting Paper had been duly adopted and that the decision so
taken was the decision of the International Commission in ine
matter aforesaid.

10. On 3lst March 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling
given in the present Opinion and at the same time signed a
Certificate that subject to the omission of the proposal relating
to Opinion 162, which, as explained in paragraph 6 above, had
been withdrawn on 25th March 1954, the terms of that Ruling
were in complete accord with those of the proposal approved by
the International Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper
V.P.(54)6.

626 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

11. The following are the original references for the names
which appear in the Ruling given in the present Direction :—

Argyreus Scopoli, 1777, Introd. Hist. nat. : 431

brevipennis, Proctotrupes, Latreille, [1802—1803], in Sonnini’s
Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 3 : 309

Ceraphron Panzer, [1805], Faun. Ins. germ. (97) : tab. 16

demodocus, Papilio, Esper, [1798], Ausl. Schmett. (14) : 205, pl. 51,
fig. 1

flavipennis, Sphex, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 201

hyperbius, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1763, Amoen. acad. 6 : 408

Limnas Hubner, [1806], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [29]

lubentina, Papilio, Cramer, [1777], Uitl. Kapellen 2 (13) : 92,
pl. 115, figs. C, D

minutator, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 225

nais, Papilio, Forster, 1771, Noy. Spec. Ins. 1 : 73

paphia, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 481

Princeps Hubner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [116]

Psammochares Latreille, 1796, Précis Caract. Ins. : 115

pulcher, Pompilus, Fabricius, 1798, Suppl. Ent. syst. : 249

sabulosa, Sphex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 569

Serphus Schrank, 1780, Schrift. Berlin. Ges. nat. Freunde 1 : 307

sulcatus, Ceraphron, Jurine, 1807, Nouv. Méth. class. Hyménopt.
: 303

Symphaedra Hubner, 1818, Zutrdge z. Samml. exot. Schmett.
te ple ngs 12

12. The following are the references to the type selections
specified for the under-mentioned genera in the Ruling given in
the present Direction :—(a) for the genus Argyreus Scopoli, 1777 :
type selection by Reuss, 1928, Int. ent. Z. 22 : 146; (b) for the
genus Symphaedra Hibner, 1818: type selection by Scudder,
1875, Proc. Amer. Acad. Arts. Sci., Boston 10 : 272.

13. The present Direction is hereby rendered in the name of
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature by
the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the said Com-
mission, in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him
in that behalf.

14. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Two (2)
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

DIRECTION 2 627

Done in London, this Thirty-First day of March, Nineteen
Hundred and Fifty-Four.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

ANNEXE

The names ‘‘ Symphaedra ’? Hiibner, 1818, and ‘‘ Euthalia ’’? Hiibner,
[1819]

Letter dated 14th March 1954 from Francis Hemming, Secretary to the
Commission to Dr. L. B. Holthuis

In reply to your letter of 16th February, I should explain that the
facts as they then existed were correctly stated in the application about
the name Euthalia, both of which were then rightly attributed to the
Verzeichniss bekannt. Schmett. It had always been known that the
name Symphaedra had been published by Hibner in volume 1 of the
Zutr. z. Samml. exot. Schmett, but at the time of the submission of this
application that name, as there published, was not an available name,
since it was published without a diagnosis and without a designated
or indicated type species. The situation in this matter was completely
changed by the decision of the Paris Congress in 1948 to liberalise
the provision of Article 25 (Bull. zool. Nomencl. 4 : 78—80), and the
reference of Symphaedra to the Zutrdge instead of to the Verzeichniss
is thus no more than an inevitable consequential result of that decision.

The purpose of the application submitted in this case was to prevent
the confusion which would inevitably arise if Symphaedra Hiibner
possessed—or could be claimed to possess—priority over Euthalia.
In this case there would not only have been confusion but also the
prospect of continuing instability, for this is a case where the type
species of a genus having (or claimed to have) a name possessing
priority (Symphaedra) over another name (Euthalia) has as its type
Species a species which is taxonomically at the extreme margin of the
large group of species habitually referred to the second genus (Euwthalia).
Thus, if no action had been taken by the Commission, we should have
had this position :—(1) Systematists who regarded the two type species
as congeneric would have had to call by the name Symphaedra all the
species hitherto called Euthalia ; (2) Systematists who regarded the
two type species as generically distinct from one another would have
used (as hitherto) the name Symphaedra for the type species of that

628 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

genus and would have used (as hitherto) the name Euthalia for all the
other species concerned. Great confusion would have resulted from
the instability so created, for in any discussion of the genus Euthalia
it would have been difficult, and often impossible, to determine the
dimensions of the group to which the author concerned was referring.
It was to prevent this most undesirable result that the application
dealt with in Opinion 167 was submitted, its purpose being to secure
that the name Euthalia should be available for the large group of species
for which it is habitually used, while at the same time arrangements
were made under which the name Symphaedra would continue to be
available for the one species which some systematists placed in Euthalia,
but others considered worthy of generic separation. Neither at that time
nor since has any lepidopterist thought it proper to advocate the sub-
stitution of the name Symphaedra for the name Euthalia. Thus, the
application submitted in this case had the support of all interested
workers.

You are, of course, correct when you say that, as the claims of
Symphaedra for priority over Euthalia rested (as it was then thought)
only on page precedence, it would not have been necessary to ask the
Commission to use the Plenary Powers to secure protection for the
name Euthalia, if that protection could have been secured by the
‘‘ first reviser ’’? provision ; but in this group the “ first reviser ’’ rule
has worked so uncertainly and attempts to operate that rule have given
rise to so much uncertainty that the applicants (Mr. N. D. Riley and
myself) took the view that the present was a case where the use of the
Plenary Powers was necessary if stability was to be secured. It was
for this reason that we submitted our application.

Mr. Riley whom I have consulted takes the view that no essential
change has occurred in regard to this name since at Lisbon in 1935
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, decided
to use its Plenary Powers to protect Euthalia as against Symphaedra.
For my part, I fully share this view. We therefore both consider that
the proper course now is to proceed as proposed in Voting Paper
V.P.(54)6, that is, to place Symphaedra on the Official List for use by
any specialist who considers that genus distinct from Euthalia, this to
be subject, however, to the condition imposed in Opinion 167 that
Symphaedra shall not be used in preference to Euthalia. The name
Euthalia Hibner is already on the Official List, following the decision
of the Commission that in the interests of stability that name must be
protected from attack.

Printed in England by Metcatre & Cooper LimiTeEp, 10-24 Scrutton St., London E C 2

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 53. Pp. 629—652

DIRECTION 4

Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes of
certain scientific names and of the titles of certain books
dealt with in Opinions 134—160, exclusive of Opinion 149

AgTHSON/S

‘ “4y~
OCT 21 1954
LIBRARY A

LONDON :

Rc os a

Price Eleven Shillings and Sixpence

Issued \st October, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 4

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (A2th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (Ast January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. he ayagne teers (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th
June 1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland) (15th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitdat
zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-
President)

fies J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanko (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York,
N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-
lands) (12th August 1953)

DIRECTION 4

ADDITION TO THE “° OFFICIAL LISTS” AND
“OFFICIAL INDEXES” OF CERTAIN
SCIENTIFIC NAMES AND OF THE TITLES
OF CERTAIN BOOKS DEALT WITH
IN ‘‘ OPINIONS ” 134—160, EX-
CLUSIVE OF ‘* OPINION ” 149

RULING :—(1) The under-mentioned generic names
are hereby placed on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology as Names Nos. 802—805 respectively :—(a)
Merops Linnaeus, 1758 (gender : masculine) (type
species, by Linnean tautonymy (Opinion 16): Merops
apiaster Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Aves) (Opinion 140) ;
(b) Merope Newman, 1838 (gender: feminine) (type
species, by monotypy: Merope tuber Newman, 1838)
(Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera) (Opinion 140); (c)
Tingis Fabricius, 1803 (gender : feminine) (type species,
by selection by Latreille (1810) : Cimex cardui Linnaeus,
1758) (Class Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Opinion 143) ;
(d) Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 (gender: feminine) (type
species, by selection by Westwood (1840) : Papilio cardui
Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (to
be used by any specialist who may consider that the type
species of this genus is generically distinct from Papilio
atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, the type species of Vanessa
Fabricius, 1807, but not to be used in preference to the
name Vanessa Fabricius, 1807) (Opinion 156).

(2) The under-mentioned specific names are hereby
placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology
as Names Nos. 241—266 respectively :—(a) achilles
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio
achilles (specific name of type species of Morpho
Fabricius, 1807) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera)
(Opinion 137) ; (b) pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, as published
in the combination Sirex pygmaeus (specific name
of type species of Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803))

632 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 139); (c)
abdominalis Panzer, [1798], as published in the com-
bination Tiphia abdominalis (specific name of type
species of Astata Latreille, 1796) (Class Insecta, Order
Hymenoptera) (Opinion 139); (d) apiaster Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the combination Merops apiaster
(specific name of type species of Merops Linnaeus, 1758)
(Class Aves) (Opinion 140) ; (e) tuber Newman, 1838, as
published in the combination Merops tuber (specific name
of type species of Merope Newman, 1838) (Class Insecta,
Order Mecoptera) (Opinion 140); (f) actaea Esper,
[1780], as published in the combination Papilio actaea
(type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers,
of Satyrus Latreille, 1810) (Class Insecta, Order Lepi-
doptera) (Opinion 142); (g) cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Cimex cardui (specific
name of type species of Tingis Fabricius, 1803) (Class
Insecta, Order Hemiptera) (Opinion 143); (h) cribraria
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Vespa
cribraria (specific name of type species, by designation
under the Plenary Powers, of Crabro Fabricius, 1775)
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 144) ;
(i) /utea Linneaus, 1758, as published in the combination
Tenthredo lutea (specific name of type species, by designa-
tion under the Plenary Powers, of Cimbex Olivier, 1790)
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 144") ;
(j) Ayale Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Papilio hyale (specific name of type species, by designation
under the Plenary Powers, of Colias Fabricius, 1807)
(Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 145) ; (k)
nigra Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Formica nigra (specific name of type species, by designation
under the Plenary Powers, of Lasius Fabricius, [1804—
1805]) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 151) ;
(1) pilipes Fabricius, 1775, as published in the combination

1 By inadvertence not all of the requisite information was submitted to the
International Commission at the time when, by the Ruling given in Opinion 144,
it validated the name Cimbex Olivier, 1790, under its Plenary Powers. On
this Omission coming to light, the necessary further action was taken by the
Commission by a decision which has since been embodied in Opinion 216
(1954, Ops. Decls, int, Comm. zool, Nomencl, 4 : 63—72).

DIRECTION 4 633

Apis pilipes (specific name of type species, by designation
under the Plenary Powers, of Anthophora Latreille, 1803)
<< Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 151) ;
m) fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, as published in the com-
bination Omalus fuscicornis (specific name of type species,
by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Bethylus
Latreille, [1802—1803]) (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno-
ptera) (Opinion 153); (n) formicarius Latreille, ({1804—
1805], as published in the combination Dryinus formicarius
(specific name of type species of Dryinus Latreille, [1804])
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 153) ;
(0) falcata Poda, 1761, as published in the combination
Gryllus falcata (specific name of type species, by designa-
tion under the Plenary Powers, of Phaneroptera Serville,
1831) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera) (Opinion 154) ;
(p) Jilifolia Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combina-
tion Locusta lilifolia (specific name of type species of
Tylopsis Fieber, 1853) (Class Insecta, Order Orthoptera)
(Opinion 154) ; (q) bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758 as published
in the combination Ichneumon bedeguaris (specific name
of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers,
of Torymus Dalman, 1820) (Class Insecta, Order Hymeno-
ptera) (Opinion 155); (rt) atalanta Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Papilio atalanta (specific
name of type species of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807) (Class
Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 156); (s) cardui
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Papilio
cardui (specific name of type species of Cynthia Fabricius,
1807) (Class Insecta, Order Lepidoptera) (Opinion 156) ;
(t) viduatorius Fabricius, [1804—1805], as published in
the combination Cryptus viduatorius (specific name of
type species of Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805]) (Class
Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 157) ; (u) enodis
Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Tenthredo
enodis (specific name of type species of Arge Schrank,
1802) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 157) ;
(v) pini Linneaus, 1758, as published in the combination
Tenthredo pini (specific name of type species of Diprion
Schrank, 1802) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)
(Opinion 157); (w) migratorius Linneaus, 1758, as
published in the combination Gryllus migratorius (specific

634 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

name of type species, by designation under the Plenary
Powers, of Locusta Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Insecta, Order
Orthoptera) (Opinion 158); (x) extensorius Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the combination Jchneumon
extensorius (specific name of type species, by designation
under the Plenary Powers, of Jchneumon Linnaeus, 1758
(Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159) ;
(y) instigator Fabricius, 1793, as published in the com-
bination Ichneumon instigator (specific name of type
species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of
Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805]) (Class Insecta, Order
Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159) ; (z) manifestator Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the combination Ichneumon mani-
festator (specific name of type species, by designation
under the Plenary Powers, of Ephialtes Gravenhorst,
1829) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159).

(3) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 212—221
respectively :—(a) the following generic names published
on plates in volume | of Hubner (J.), Sammlung exotischer
Schmetterlinge, being names suppressed under the Plenary
Powers for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not
for those of the Law of Homonymy :—(i) Potamis
Hiibner, [1807]; (ii) Rusticus Htibner, [1807]; (11)
Mancipium Hubner, [1807] (Opinion 137); (b) Astatus
[Jurine], 1801 (a name published in a work suppressed
for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers)
(Opinion 139); (c) Crabro Geoffroy, 1762 (a name
suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homo-
nymy”) (Opinion 144); (d) Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802]
(a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the
purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of

2 At the time when the name Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, was suppressed under the
Plenary Powers, it was an open question whether the Histoire abrégée in which
it was published was an available work under Article 25 of the Régles. It
has since been ruled by the Commission that the foregoing work does not
comply with the requirements of the above Article and therefore that no name
acquired the status of availability by reason of having been published in
Geoffroy’s Histoire abrégée. See Opinion 228 (1954, Ops. Decls. int. Comm.
zool. Nomencl. 4 : 209—220).

DIRECTION 4 | 635

Homonymy) (Opinion 151); (e) Podalirius Latreille,
1802 (a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for
the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of
the Law of Homonymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymen-
optera) (Opinion 151); (f) Callimome Spinola, 1811
(a name suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the
purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the
Law of Homonymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)
(Opinion 155); (g) Misocampe Latreille, 1818 (a name
suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera)
(Opinion 155); (h) Ephialtes Schrank, 1802 (a name
suppressed under the Plenary Powers for the purposes
both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homo-
nymy) (Class Insecta, Order Hymenoptera) (Opinion 159).

(4) The titles of the under-mentioned works are hereby
placed on the Official List of Works approved as Available
for Zoological Nomenclature as Works Nos. 12—16
respectively :—(a) Freyer (C. F.), Neuere Beitrdge zur
Schmetterlingskunde, 7 vols., 1833—1858 (species
described as new in this work to be treated as having been
described as belonging to the genus cited by Freyer
at the head of the description and not to the genus
with the name of which the new specific name was actually
combined) (Opinion 134); (b) Latreille (P. A.), Con-
sidérations générales sur [Ordre naturel des Animaux
composant les Classes des Crustacés, des Arachnides et des
Insectes avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs Genres
disposés en Familles, 1810 (the entries in the Tableau
Meéthodique® at the end of this work to be accepted as

® It may be noted that, although the very important list of genera containing
type selections made by Latreille in the Considerations générales is referred
to on the title page of that work under the title “ Tableau méthodique de leurs
Genres disposés en Familles, this is not the title actually used by Latreille at the
head of this list, which was as follows :—Table des Genres avec lindication
de Pespéce qui leur sert de type’’. It is presumably because of the use by Latreille
of the word “‘ Tableau’’ in the expression ‘“‘ Tableau méthodique’’ on the title
page and of the substitution for that word of the word * Table’’ at the head
of the list itself that this list has been commonly, though incorrectly, referred
to in the literature as the “* Table méthodique ”’ of Latreille (1810).

636 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

constituting the selection, under Rule (g) in Article 30,
of type species for the genera concerned in those cases
where Latreille there cited for the genus in question one
nominal species only but in no other case, it being under-
stood that the selection so made is to be accepted as a
valid selection, only (i) if the nominal species so selected
was one of those included in the genus by its original
author and (ii) if the type species for the genus concerned
had not already been determined under any of the earlier
Rules in Article 30 or by a previous selection made under
Rule (g) in that Article) (Opinion 136, incorporating
Opinion 11); (c) Fabricius (J. C.), a paper entitled
‘Die neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge
aus den Linneischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx”
published in 1807 on pages 277—295 of volume 6 of the
serial publication Magazin fiir Insektenkunde heraus-
gegeben von Karl Iiliger (generic names published in the
foregoing paper to take precedence over any names
published for the same genera earlier in 1807 by Hubner
(J.) on the legends to plates in volume 1 of the work
entitled Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge) (Ruling
given under the Plenary Powers) (Opinion 137); (d)
Htibner (J.), Sammlung exotischer Schmetterlinge, 3 vols.
(vol. 2 completed, and vol. 3 compiled, by Geyer (C.) ),
1806—[1838] (generic names published on the legends
of plates in vol. 1 of this work prior to the publication
in 1807 by Fabricius (J. C.) of the paper entitled “ Die
neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den
Linneischen Gattungen Papilio und Sphinx” not to take
precedence over names published by Fabricius for the
same genera) (Ruling given under the Plenary Powers)
(Opinion 137); (e) Hiibner (J.), Verzeichniss bekannter
Schmettlinge [sic], 1816—[ 1826] (the dates, as determined
in the light of the discovery of Htibner’s manuscripts, to be —
accepted for the several portions of this work being as
follows :—(1) pp. 1—16, 1816; (2) pp. 17—176, [1819] ;
(3) pp. 177—208, [1820]; (4) pp. 209—256, [1821];
(5) pp. 257—304, [1823]; (6) pp. 305—431, [1825] ;
(7) Anzeiger, pp. 1—72, [1826]) (Opinion 150).

(5) The under-mentioned work is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological

DIRECTION 4 637

Nomenclature as Work No. 28 :—[Jurine, (L.)],
anonymous paper entitled “ Nachricht von Einen neuen
entomolischen [sic] Werke des Hrn. Prof. JURINE in
Geneve” (dealing with the generic classification of the
Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) ) and commonly
known as the “ Erlangen List’? published in 1801 on
pp. 161—165 of the unnumbered volume for that year
of the serial publication /ntelligenz-Blatt der Literatur-
Zeitung (a paper suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes
under the Plenary Powers) (Opinion 135).

I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT
** DIRECTION ”

The present Direction contains the fourth instalment of
decisions taken by the International Commission on Zoological
Nomenclature under the General Directive given to it by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that
it should review the Rulings given in all its previous Opinions for
the purpose of placing on the various Official Lists and Official
Indexes scientific names dealt with in those Opinions and the
titles of books similarly dealt with. The first and third instal-
ments (Directions 1 and 3) contained decisions taken by the
International Commission after reviewing the Rulings given in
Opinions 182—194, the first thirteen Opinions included in volume
3 of the present work ; the second instalment (Direction 2)
contained decisions taken after the review of Opinions 161—181.
The present Direction contains the decisions taken by the
Commission after reviewing the Rulings given in Opinions.
134—160, exclusive of Opinion 149, which it was considered
could more conveniently be dealt with separately owing to the
large number of names involved. The present Direction con-
cludes the review by the Commission of the Rulings given in

638 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Opinions 134—160, save as regards certain individual items which,
as explained in the notes reproduced in paragraph 2 of the present
Direction, have been reserved by the Commission for individual
treatment. |

2. On Sth April 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary,
submitted to the Commission the following note covering the
annexed Draft of a Direction embodying his proposals for the
codification, in accordance with the decision of the Paris Congress,
of the Rulings given by the Commission in Opinions 134—160,
exclusive of Opinion 149, proposals relating to which were
deferred by Mr. Hemming for separate submission to the
Commission? :—

Addition to the ‘‘ Official Lists ’’ and ‘* Official Indexes ’’ of certain
names and of the titles of certain books dealt with in ‘° Opinions ”’
134—148 and 150—160, under the General Directives on this
subject issued to the Commission by the Thirteenth (Paris)
and Fourteenth (Copenhagen) International Congresses

of Zoology

In my Note dated 12th February 1954 I submitted to the Commission
with V.P.(54)6 proposals for the addition to the Official Lists and
Official Indexes of certain names dealt with in the Commission’s
Opinions 161—181, under the General Directive on this subject issued
to the Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948. I now submit corresponding proposals relating to the
Commission’s Opinions 134—148 and 150—160. Opinion 149 contains
a large number of names which will need to be added to the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology, and I have thought that it would be
more convenient to reserve the proposals in regard to this Opinion for
submission with a later Note.

2. I have annexed to the present paper a series of short notes con-
taining explanations of certain of the proposals now submitted, which
I hope will serve the convenience of members of the Commission.

Notes on Points arising on ‘“ Opinions ’’ 134—160

Note | : Opinion 136 was itself no more than a clarification of a Ruling
given in Opinion 11 in regard to the interpretation, in relation to Rule
(g) in Article 30, of action taken by Latreille in 1810 in the Tableau
méthodique annexed to his Considérations générales. It would clearly
be not only impracticable but also highly inappropriate to attempt to
codify the Ruling given in Opinion 136 independently of that given in

* See?Direction 5 (1954, Ops. Decls, int. Comm. zool. Nomencl, 2 : 653—664.

DIRECTION 4 639

Opinion 11. Accordingly, in the codification now submitted the
Rulings given in these two Opinions are dealt with together.

Note 2: In Opinion 137 the Plenary Powers were used (conditionally)
for the purpose of protecting three well-known generic names, but
through some inadvertence it was not expressly stated in the Official
Record of the Session held by the Commission at Lisbon (where the
Ruling given in this Opinion was adopted) that these three generic
names were to be placed on the Official List. When during the late
war I was engaged in compiling the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology, | brought this omission to the notice of President Karl Jordan
who thereupon gave directions that, subject to later confirmation by the
Commission, these names (Morpho Fabricius ; Helicopis Fabricius ;
Pontia Fabricius) were to be treated as having been placed on the
Official List. The action so taken was reported to the Commission in
Paris with reference to the second and third of these names which then
came before it in another connection, and the action of President
Jordan in this matter was confirmed ; at the same time the names of
the type species of Helicopis and Pontia were placed on the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology. Accordingly, all that is now required
to give effect to the Paris Congress’ General Directive is that the name
of the type species of Morpho should be placed on the foregoing Official
List and that the three corresponding generic names published by
Hiibner in the Sammi. exot. Schmett should be placed on the Official
Index.

Note 3: Opinion 138 is concerned only with the interpretation of a
provision in the Rég/es and no action is called for at the present time
in connection with this Opinion.

Note 4: Opinion 140 was primarily concerned with the formation of
two family names which are now to be entered on the Official List of
Family-Group Names in Zoology. At the same time it will be necessary
to place on the Official List of Generic Names the names of the type
genera of these families and on the Official List of Specific Names the
specific names of the type species of these two genera. The particulars
needed for this purpose are not given in this Opinion, and I have
accordingly made special inquiries for the purpose of securing the
necessary information. (A) The name Merops Linnaeus, 1758, is
accepted by all ornithologists as the generic name for the Bee-Eater and
Merops apiaster Linnaeus, 1758, is accepted by all workers as the type
species of this genus ; it became the type species by Linnean tautonymy
through the citation by Linnaeus under the name Merops apiaster of the
pre-1758 univerbal name “‘ Merops ”’ by various early authors. (B) The
name Merope Newman, 1838: I have consulted Mr. N. D. Riley
(British Museum (Natural History), London), who informs me that the
name Merope Newman, 1838, is currently accepted as the name of a
taxonomically valid genus, which inturnis the type genus of the currently

640 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

accepted family MEROPEIDAE, that this name is feminine in gender,
that the type species of the above genus is Merope tuber Newman, 1838,
by monotypy, that the specific name tuber Newman is currently accepted
as the oldest available name for the species concerned and therefore
that both the generic name Merope Newman and the specific name
tuber Newman (Merope) are eligible for admission to the appropriate
Official Lists and should be so admitted.

Note 5: For reasons similar to those explained in Note 3 above in
connection with Opinion 138, no action at the present time is called
for in connection with Opinion 141.

Note 6: Like Opinion 140, Opinion 143 is mainly concerned with the
formation of a family name, and it is necessary now to place the type
genus of that family and the specific name of the type species of that
genus on the appropriate Official Lists. I have consulted Dr. W. E.
China (British Museum (Natural History), London), who informs me
that the type species of Tingis Fabricius, 1803 is Cimex cardui Linnaeus,
1758, by selection by Latreille, 1810, that the name cardui Linnaeus
is currently accepted for the species so named, that there is agreement
among specialists on these questions and therefore that these names
should be entered in the Official Lists concerned.

Note 7: For reasons similar to those explained in Note 3 above in
connection with Opinion 138, no action at the present time is called
for in connection with Opinion 145.

Note 8: For reasons similar to those referred in the immediately
preceding note, no action is called for at the present time in connection
with Opinion 147 or with Opinion 148.

Note 9: Proposals for the codification of the names included in the
Ruling given in Opinion 149 will be submitted in a later Voting Paper?.

Note 10: Opinion 152 is concerned with Meigen, 1800, Nouvelle
Classification des Mouches a deux ailes. The Ruling given was purely
interim in character. A comprehensive proposal on this subject has since
been submitted by Dr. C. W. Sabrosky (Z.N.(S.) 191).

Note |1 : The purpose of the application dealt with in Opinion 156 was
to secure a Ruling which would prevent any possibility of the sub-
stitution of the name Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, for the name Vanessa
Fabricius, 1807, two names of which the latter is a household word,
while the former has only been used intermittently. The two names
were published in the same work and the name Cynthia has page
precedence over Vanessa. The difficulties of the literature in this group
are such that it has been found that the “ First Reviser ”’ Rule cannot
be relied upon to produce a conclusion which would not be open to

5 See footnote 4.
§ Sabrosky, 1952, Bull. zool. Nomencl. 6 : 131—141.

DIRECTION 4 641

challenge. For this reason there was a tendency at the time of the
submission of this application for specialists to rely upon the principle
of page precedence. The name Cynthia Fabricius is an available name,
being only a subjective synonym of Vanessa Fabricius. It would be
appropriate, therefore, for that name now to be placed on the Official
List of Generic Names with a note that it is available for use by any
specialist who considers that the type species of Cynthia and Vanessa
are generically distinct from one another but that this name is not
available for use in preference to the name Vanessa.

Note 12: Opinion 160, which is concerned with the name Anguina
Scopoli, 1777, gave only an interim Ruling which it is desirable should
be replaced as quickly as possible by a definite Ruling. Proposals to this
end have been submitted to the Commission and are now under con-
sideration by it in the vote which is in progress on Voting Paper
V.P.(54)15.

Annexe to the Note by the Secretary covering
Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4

ADDITION TO THE ‘ OFFICIAL LISTS ’” AND ‘ OFFICIAL
INDEXES ” OF CERTAIN SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF THE
TITLES OF CERTAIN BOOKS DEALT WITH IN

** OPINIONS ”’ 134—148 AND 150— 160

Draft Direction

The following scientific names and the titles of the following books
dealt with in Opinions 134—160 are hereby added to the Official
Lists and Official Indexes noted below in accordance (a) with the
General Directive issued to the International Commission by the
Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it
should insert in the foregoing Lists and Indexes entries relating to
- scientific names dealt with in Opinions rendered prior to the Paris
Session and (b) with the corresponding Directive issued by the
Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology, Copenhagen, 1953,
that similar entries relating to the titles of books dealt with in such
Opinions should be made in the Official List and Official Index
established by that Congress for the recording of such decisions :—

OPINION 134: The title of the under-mentioned work with the
annexed note is to be entered in the Official List of Works Approved as
Available for Zoological Nomenclature :—Freyer (C. F.), Neuere
Beitrdge zur Schmetterlingskunde, 1833—-1858, 7 vols. (species des-
cribed as new in this work to be treated as having been described as
belonging to the genus cited by Freyer at the head of the description
and not to the genus in combination with the name of which the new
specific name was actually cited).

642 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

OPINION 135 : The title of the under-mentioned paper is to be entered
in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Works in Zoological
Nomenclature :—The paper by Jurine (L.) dealing with the generic
classification of the Order Hymenoptera (Class Insecta) published
anonymously in 1801 under the title ‘*‘ Nachricht von einen neuen
entomolischen [sic] Werke des Hrn. Prof, Jurine in Geneve’’ ({anon.],
1801, Jntelligenz-Blatt der Literatur-Zeitung 1801 : 161—165) (sup-
pressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers).

OPINION 136 (embodying also OPINION 11): The title of the
under-mentioned work is to be entered in the Official List of Works
Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature, together with the
accompanying note : Latreille (P. A.), 1810, Considérations générales
sur l Ordre naturel des Animaux composant les Classes des Crustacés,
des Arachnides et des Insectes avec un Tableau méthodique de leurs
Genres disposés en Familles (the entries in the Tableau méthodique at
the end of this work are to be accepted as constituting the selection,
under Rule (g) in Article 30, of type species for the genera concerned
in those cases where Latreille there cited for the genus concerned one
nominal species only but in no other case, it being understood that a
selection so made is to be accepted as a valid selection only (a) if the
nominal species so selected was one of those included in the genus
by its original author and (b) if the type species for the genus con-
cerned had not been determined under any of the earlier Rules in
Article 30 or by a previous selection made under Rule (g) ).

OPINION 137: (1) The titles of the under-mentioned works are to be
entered in the Official List of Works Approved as Available for Zoo-
logical Nomenclature :—(a) Fabricius (J. C.), 1807, ‘‘ Die neueste
Gattungs-Eintheilung der Schmetterlinge aus den Linneischen Gat-
tungen Papilio und Sphinx ’’ (Fabricius (J. C.), 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk.
(Illiger) 6 : 277—295); (b) Hiibner (J.), 1806—[1838], Sammlung
exotischer Schmetterlinge, 3 vols. (vol. 2 completed, and vol. 3 pub-
lished, by Geyer (C.)) (generic names in this work published before
the publication in 1807 by Fabricius (J. C.) of the paper entitled “* Die
neueste Gattungs-Eintheilung . . .”’ not to take precedence over the
names so published by Fabricius). (2) The following entry to be made
in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology : achilles Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the combination Papilio achilles (specific name
of type species of Morpho Fabricius, 1807). (3) The following entries
to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names
in Zoology :—the under-mentioned names as published on plates in
Hubner’s Sammi. exot. Schmett. and as suppressed under the Plenary
Powers :— (a) Potamis Hiibner [1807] ; (b) Rusticus Hiibner, [1807] ;
(c) Mancipium Hibner, [1807].

OPINION 139: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) pygmaeus Linnaeus, 1767, as

DIRECTION 4 643

published in the combination Sirex pygmaeus (specific name of type
species of Cephus Latreille, [1802—1803]) ; (b) abdominalis Panzer,
[1798], as published in the combination Tiphia abdominalis (specific
name of type species of Astata Latreille, 1796). (2) The following
entry to be made in the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic
Names in Zoology :—Astatus [Jurine], 1801 (name published in a work
suppressed for nomenclatorial purposes under the Plenary Powers).

OPINION 140: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology :—(a) Merops Linnaeus, 1758
(gender : masculine) (type species, by Linnean tautonymy (Opinion 16):
Merops apiaster, Linnaeus, 1758) (Class Aves) ; (b) Merope Newman,
1838 (gender : feminine) (type species, by monotypy : Merope tuber,
Newman, 1838) (Class Insecta, Order Mecoptera). (2) The specific
names of the type species of the two genera specified in (1) above to
be placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology. (3) The
following entries to be made in the Official List of Family-Group
Names in Zoology :—({a) MEROPIDAE (type genus : Merops Linnaeus,
1758); (b) MEROPEIDAE (type genus: Merope Newman, 1838)
(family name formed under the Ruling given in Opinion 140).

OPINION 142 : The following entry to be made in the Official List of
Specific Names in Zoology : actaea Esper, [1780], as published in the
combination Papilio actaea (specific name of type species of Satyrus
Latreille, 1810, by designation under the Plenary Powers).

OPINION 143 : (1) The generic name Jingis Fabricius, 1803 (gender :
feminine) (type species, by selection by Latreille (1810) : Cimex cardui
Linnaeus, 1758) to be entered on the Official List of Generic Names in
Zoology. (2) The specific name cardui Linnaeus, 1758, as published in
the combination Cimex cardui (specific name of type species of Tingis
Fabricius, 1803) to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology. (3) The family name TINGIDAE (type genus: Tingis
Fabricius, 1803) (family name formed under the Ruling given in
Opinion 143) to be entered in the Official List of Family-Group Names
in Zoology.

OPINION 144: (1) The name Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, as suppressed
under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of
Priority and of the Law of Homonymy to be entered in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The
following names to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology :—(a) cribraria Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination
Vespa cribraria (specific name of type species, by designation under the
Plenary Powers, of Crabro Fabricius, 1775); (b) /utea Linnaeus, 1758,
as published in the combination Tenthredo lutea (specific name of type
species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Cimbex Olivier,
1790). | 3 :

644 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

OPINION 146: The specific name hyale Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the combination Papilio hyale (specific name of type species, by
designation under the Plenary Powers, of Colias Fabricius, 1807) to be
entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology.

OPINION 150: The following entry to be made in the Official List
of Works Approved as Available for Zoological Nomenclature : Hiibner
(J.), 1816—[1826], Verzeichniss bekannter Schmettlinge [sic] (the dates,
as determined in the light of the discovery of Hiibner’s manuscripts,
to be accepted for the several portions of this work being as follows :—
(1) pp. 1—16, 1816; (2) pp. 17—176, [1819]; (3) pp. 177—208,
[1820] ; (4) pp. 209—256, [1821]; (5) pp. 257—304, [1823] ; (6) pp.
305—431, [1825] ; (7) Anzeiger, pp. 1—72, [1826]).

OPINION 151: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology :—(a) Lasius
Panzer, [1801—1802] (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, for the
purposes both of the Law of Priority and of the Law of Homonymy) ;
(b) Podalirius Latreille, 1802 (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers,
for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law
of Homonymy). (2) The following entries to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) nigra Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Formica nigra (specific name of type
species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Lasius Fabricius,
[1804—1805]) ; (b) pilipes Fabricius, 1775, as published in the com-
bination Apis pilipes (specific name of type species, by designation
under the Plenary Powers, of Anthophora Latreille, 1803).

OPINION 153: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) fuscicornis Jurine, 1807, as
published in the combination Omalus fuscicornis (specific name, by
designation under the Plenary Powers, of Bethylus Latreille, [1802—
1803]) ; (b) formicarius Latreille, [1804—1805], as published in the
combination Dryinus formicarius (specific name of type species of
Dryinus Latreille, [1804]).

OPINION 154: The following entries to be made in the Official List
of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) falcata Poda, 1761, as published
in the combination Gryllus falcata (specific name of type species, by
designation under the Plenary Powers, of Phaneroptera Serville, 1831) ;
(b) /ilifolia Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Locusta
lilifolia (specific name of type species of Tylopsis Fieber, 1853).

OPINION 155: (1) The following entries to be made in the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology : (a) Callimome
Spinola, 1811 (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers, for the purposes
of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of Homonymy) ;
(b) Misocampe Latreille, 1818 (suppressed, under the Plenary Powers,

DIRECTION 4 645

for the purposes of the Law of Priority but not for those of the Law of
Homonymy). (2) The specific name bedeguaris Linnaeus, 1758,
as published in the combination Ichneumon bedeguaris (specific name
of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Torymus
Dalman, 1820) to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology.

OPINION 156: (1) The name Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 (type species,
by selection by Westwood (1840) : Papilio cardui Linnaeus, 1758) to be
entered in the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology with the follow-
ing note attached to it :—(to be used by any specialist who considers
the type species of this genus and that of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807,
to be generically distinct from one another but, by direction given
under the Plenary Powers, not to be used in preference to Vanessa
Fabricius, 1807) ; (2) The under-mentioned names to be entered in the
Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—(a) atalanta Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the combination Papilio atalanta (specific name
of type species of Vanessa Fabricius, 1807) ; (b) cardui Linnaeus, 1758,
as published in the combination Papilio cardui (specific name of type
species of Cynthia Fabricius, 1807).

OPINION 157: The following names to be entered in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology : (a) viduatorius Fabricius, [1804—
1805], as published in the combination Cryptus viduatorius (specific
name of type species of Cryptus Fabricius, [1804—1805]) ; (b) enodis
Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Tenthredo enodis
(specific name of type species of Arge Schrank, 1802) ; (c) pini Linnaeus,
1758, as published in the combination Tenthredo pini (specific name of
type species of Diprion Schrank, 1802).

OPINION 158: The following name to be entered in the Official
List of Specific Names in Zoology :—migratorius Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Gryllus migratorius (specific name of
type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of Locusta
Linnaeus, 1758).

OPINION 159: (1) The name Ephialtes Schrank, 1802 (as suppressed
under the Plenary Powers for the purposes both of the Law of Priority
and of the Law of Homonymy) to be entered in the Official Index
of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. (2) The following
names to be entered in the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—
(a) extensorius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Ich-
neumon extensorius (specific name of type species, by designation under
the Plenary Powers, of Ichneumon Linnaeus, 1758); (b) instigator
Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Jchneumon instigator
(specific name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers,
of Pimpla Fabricius, [1804—1805]) ; (c) manifestator Linnaeus, 1758,

646 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

as published in the combination Ichneumon manifestator (specific
name of type species, by designation under the Plenary Powers, of
Ephialtes Gravenhorst, 1829).

Il—DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(.O.M.)(54)4 : Concurrently with
the submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction repro-
duced in the annexe to the note by the Secretary reproduced in
paragraph 2 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper
V.P.(O.M.)(54)4, was issued on Sth April 1954 under the One-
Month Rule. In this Voting Paper each Member of the Com-
mission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “ that, in
conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording
on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in
regard to particular names and particular books taken by the
Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International Com-
mission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, the entries recording such decisions taken in Opinions
134—148 and 150—160 in the Draft Direction annexed to the
statement submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the
present Voting Paper, should be made, as proposed, in the
Official Lists and Official Indexes concerned, and (2), if he did
not so agree, as regards any given item, to indicate the item
concerned.

4. The prescribed Voting Period: As the foregoing Voting
Paper was issued under the One-Month Rule, the prescribed
Voting Period closed on 5th May 1954.

DIRECTION 4 647

5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 :
The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 at the
close of the prescribed Voting Period was as follows :—

(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen
(17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which
Votes were received) :

Holthuis ; Lemche; Vokes; Hering; Sylvester-
Bradley ; Bonnet; Dymond; Mertens ; Cabrera ;
Esaki; Stoll; Jaczewski; Riley ; Pearson ; Hem-
ming ; Bradley (J. C.) ; Boschma ;

(b) Negative Votes :

None ;

do Amaral ; ‘Hanko.

6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 6th May 1954,
Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission,
acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper
V.P.(O.M.)(54)4, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were
as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal
submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted
and that the decision so taken was the decision of the Inter-
national Commission in the matter aforesaid.

7. Postponement of the addition to the “ Official Lists’’ and
* Official Indexes”’ of the Family-Group Names dealt with in
** Opinions”? 140 and 143: On 12th June 1954 Mr. Francis
Hemming, as Secretary, placed on the Commission’s File

7 After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period Affirmative Votes were received
from Commissioner do Amaral and Commissioner Hanko.

648 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

Z.N.(G.)67 the following Declaratory Minute postponing the
placing on the Official Lists and Official Indexes of the Family-
Group Names dealt in Opinions 140 and 143 respectively :—

Postponement of the addition to the ‘* Official Lists ’’ and ‘‘ Official
Indexes ’’ of the Family-Group Names dealt with in ‘‘ Opinions ”’
140 and 143 respectively

MINUTE dated 12th June 1954

By FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The proposed codification of the decisions taken by the Com-
mission (a) in Opinion 140 (relating to the family names MEROPIDAE
(Class Aves) and MEROPEIDAE (Class Insecta) ) and in Opinion 143
(relating to the family name TINGIDAE (Class Insecta) ) raises for the
first time in a concrete fashion the problems involved in placing
Family-Group names on the Official Lists and Official Indexes
established by the Fourteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Copenhagen, 1953, for the recording of such names. In preparing °
the Rulings required to give effect to the decisions in regard to the
foregoing names taken by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper
V.P.(O.M.)(54)4, I have encountered considerable difficulties of
various kinds. I hoped originally that, by a study of the relevant litera-
ture and by consultation with specialists in the groups concerned,
it might be possible to resolve these difficulties on a routine basis, and
it was for this reason that I did not complete and sign the Direction
giving effect to the decision taken by the Commission in its vote on
the foregoing Voting Paper immediately after the close of the Pre-
scribed Voting Period on 5th May 1954.

2. In the investigations referred to above |] have received great
assistance from Dr. Ernst Mayr, Mr. N. D. Riley and Mr. D. E.
Kimmins, and Dr. W. E. China, but in spite of the assistance so
rendered I cannot feel that the difficulties involved in preparing the
Ruling codifying the decisions taken by the Commission in the Opinions
referred to above have been overcome to a degree sufficient to justify
the inclusion in the Ruling to be rendered in pursuance of the vote
taken on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 of entries relating to the
decisions taken in regard to the foregoing Opinions. I am of the
opinion therefore that the questions involved in codifying the decisions
given in these two Opinions will med to be resubmitted to the
Commission.

DIRECTION 4 649

3. In order to avoid any further delay in the rendering of the
Direction embodying the decision taken by the Commission on Voting
Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 and incidentally also that taken on Voting
Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 (the Voting Paper concerned with the next
following Direction), | hereby direct (1) that, pending a further decision
being taken by the Commission in regard to the codification of the
decisions embodied in Opinions 140 and 143, no entries are to be
made in the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology or in the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group Names in Zoology
in respect of the Family-Group names dealt with in the foregoing
Opinions, and (2) that the Direction embodying the decision taken
by the Commission in its vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 be
now rendered forthwith, subject to the omission therefrom of the matters
specified in (1) above.

8. On 12th June 1954, Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling
given in the present Direction and at the same time signed a
Certificate that the terms of that Ruling were in complete
accord with those of the proposal approved by the International
Commission in its Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4,
subject to the omission therefrom, as prescribed in the Declara-
tory Minute by the Secretary dated 12th June 1954 reproduced
in paragraph 7 of the present Direction, of decisions relating to the
placing on the Official List of Family-Group Names in Zoology
and on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Family-Group
Names in Zoology of the names dealt with in Opinions 140 and
143 respectively.

9. The following are the original references for the generic and
specific names placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the
Ruling given in the present Direction :—

abdominalis, Tiphia, Panzer, [1798], Faun. Ins. germ. (53) : tab. 5

achilles, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 463

actaea, Papilio, Esper, [1780], Die Schmett. 1 (Bd 2) Forts. Tag-
schmett : 37, pl. 57, figs. la g, 1b 7

apiaster, Merops, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 117

Astatus |Jurine], 1801, Intell.-Bl. Lit.-Ztg 1801 : 163

atalanta, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 478

bedeguaris, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 567

Callimome Spinola, 1811, Ann. Mus. Hist. nat., Paris 17(98) : 148

cardui, Cimex, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 443

650 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

cardui, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1 : 475

Crabro Geoffroy, 1762, Hist. abrég. Ins. Paris, 2 : 261

cribraria, Vespa, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 573

Cynthia Fabricius, 1807, Mag. f. Insektenk. (Illiger) 6 : 281

enodis, Tenthredo, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 922

Ephialtes Schrank, 1802, Fauna boic. 2(2) : 316

extensorius, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 561

falcata, Gryllus, Poda, 1761, Ins. Mus. graec. : 52

formicarius, Dryinus, Latreille, [1804—1805], in Sonnini’s Buffon,
Hist. nat. gén. partic. Crust. Ins. 13 : 228

fuscicornis, Omalus, Jurine, 1807, Nouv. Méth. class. Hyménopt :
301

hyale, Papilio, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 469

instigator, Ichneumon, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 164

Lasius Panzer, [1801—1802], Faun. Ins. germ. (86) : tab. 16

lilifolia, Locusta, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 36

lutea, Tenthredo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 555

Mancipium Hubner, [1807], Sammi. exot. Schmett. 1 : pl. [141]

manifestator, Ichneumon, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 563

Merope Newman, 1838, Ent. Mag. 5(2) : 180

Merops Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10), 1 : 117

migratorius, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432

Misocampe Latreille, 1818, Nouy. Dict. Hist. nat. (ed. 2) 21 : 213

nigra, Formica, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 580,

pilipes, Apis, Fabricius, 1775, Syst. Ent. : 383

pini, Tenthredo, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 556

Podalirius Latreille, 1802, Hist. nat. Fourmis : 430

Potamis Hubner, [1807], Samml. oxet. Schmett. 1 : pl. [79]

pygmaeus, Sirex, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 929

Rusticus Hubner, [1807], Samml. exot. Schmett. 1: pls. [102],
[104]

Tingis Fabricius, 1803, Syst. Rhyng. : 124

tuber, Merope, Newman, 1838, Ent. Mag. 5(2) : 180

viduatorius, Cryptus, Fabricius, [1804—1805], Syst. Piezat. : 70

10. The following are the references for the selection of type
species for nominal genera placed on the Official List of Generic
Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in the present Direction :—

DIRECTION 4 651

For Tingis Fabricius, 1803: Latreille, 1810, Consid. gén. Anim.
Crust. Arach. Ins. : 433

For Cynthia Fabricius, 1807 : Westwood, 1840, Introd. Class. Ins.
Zesym ; &/

11. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by the
International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in dealing
with the present case, and the present Direction is accordingly
hereby rendered in the name of the said International Commission
by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary to the Inter-
national Commission on Zoological Nomenclature, in virtue
of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that behalf.

12. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Four (4)
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

DONE in London, this Twelfth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Fifty-Four.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

RE ph SOP pe Sake AY ua
i 4 * ' ves a | be!
HA ORE 7 Dey bie Be Seer | See ae ;
' a aR
‘ 7
Veen}! \ B |

Velea tet VCRs

‘ bara pi wie <3) ie Be) \sidinaeay
f) FE. Sore ero iS Pee x 0 a ares ina

DOneniGs

ae :
:
7 : " it ‘ i
: ¢ aX t Aa ae Povetita i ane HEB va vey ae We
: en ee h 4 is is 4
PPP ESSER EERE Mie iS iy ee CP RG
é 5 .

tads fj Srhkee 2H ESE ;
‘i? +X - } PLR
‘AS ak!

.
; ae
cara Bia a
Eee RY

Y
ba) ’
i
2

} A
i «
% "

Printed in England by Mrtcatre &

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 54. Pp. 633—664

DIRECTION 5

Addition to the Official Lists and Official Indexes
of certain scientific names dealt with in Opinion 149

. 1954
co RARN y Z

LONDON :

Price Five Shillings and Sixpence

Issued 1st October, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 5

A. The Officers of the Commission

Honorary Life President : Dr. Karl Jordan (British Museum (Natural History),
Zoological Museum, Tring, Herts., England)

President : Professor James Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y.,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953) 4

Vice-President : Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (Sao Paulo, Brazil) (A2th
August 1953)

Secretary : Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948)

B. The Members of the Commission

(Arranged in order of precedence by reference to date of election or of most recent
re-election, as prescribed by the International Congress of Zoology)

Professor H. Boschma (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The
Netherlands) (Ast January 1947)

Senor Dr. Angel Cabrera (Eva Peron, F.C.N.G.R., Argentina) (27th July 1948)

Mr. Francis Hemming (London, England) (27th July 1948) (Secretary)

Dr. Joseph Pearson (Tasmanian Museum, Hobart, Tasmania, Australia) (27th
July 1948)

Dr. Henning Lemche (Universitetets Zoologiske Museum, Copenhagen, Denmark)
(27th July 1948)

Professor Teiso Esaki (Kyushu University, Fukuoka, Japan) (17th April 1950)

Professor Pierre Bonnet (Université de Toulouse, France) (9th June 1950)

Mr. Norman Denbigh Riley (British Museum (Natural History) London) (9th
June 1950)

Professor Tadeusz Jaczewski Unstitute of Zoology, Polish Academy of Sciences,
Warsaw, Poland) (i5th June 1950)

Professor Robert Mertens (Natur-Museum u. Forschungs-Institut Senckenberg,
Frankfurt a.M., Germany) (Sth July 1950)

Professor Erich Martin Hering (Zoologisches Museum der Humboldt-Universitat
zu Berlin, Germany) (Sth July 1950)

Senhor Dr. Afranio do Amaral (S. Paulo, Brazil) (12th August 1953) (Vice-
President)

Professor J. R. Dymond (University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada) (12th August
1953)

Professor J. Chester Bradley (Cornell University, Ithaca, N.Y., U.S.A.) (12th
August 1953) (President)

Professor Harold E. Vokes (Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, Maryland,
U.S.A.) (12th August 1953)

Professor Béla Hanko (Békéscsaba, Hungary) (12th August 1953)

Dr. Norman R. Stoll (Rockefeller Institute for Medical Research, New York,
N.Y., U.S.A.) (A2th August 1953)

Mr. P. C. Sylvester-Bradley (Sheffield University, Sheffield, England) (12th
August 1953)

Dr. L. B. Holthuis (Rijksmuseum van Natuurlijke Historie, Leiden, The Nether-
lands) (12th August 1953)

DIRECTION 5

ADDITION TO THE ‘ OFFICIAL LISTS ’” AND
** OFFICIAL INDEXES ” OF CERTAIN
SCIENTIFIC NAMES DEALT WITH
IN ‘OPINION ” 149

RULING : (1) The undermentioned specific names are
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology as Names Nos. 267—287 respectively :—(a)
acervorum Panzer, [1799], as published in the com-
bination Blatta acervorum (specific name of type species
of Myrmecophilus Berthold, 1827); (b) aptera Char-
pentier, 1825, as published in the combination Forficula
aptera (specific name of type species of Chelidura
Berthold, 1827); (c) caerulans Linnaeus, 1767, as pub-
lished in the combination Gryllus caerulans (specific
name of type species of Sphingonotus (emend. of Sphingo-
nothus) Fieber, 1852); (d) caerulescens Linnaeus, 1758,
as published in the combination Gryllus caerulescens
(specific name of type species of Oedipoda Latreille,
1829); (e) gigantea Klug, 1820, as published in the
combination Proscopia gigantea (specific name of type
species of Proscopia Klug, 1820) ; (f) glabra Herbst, 1786,
as published in the combination Locusta glabra (specific
name of type species of Gampsocleis Fieber, 1852) ;
(g) gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
combination Gryllus gryllotalpa (specific name of type
species of Gryllotalpa Latreille, [1802—1803]) ; (h) macu-
licollis Serville, 1831, as published in the combination
Gryllacris maculicollis (specific name of type species of
Gryllacris Serville, 1831); (i) minor Linnaeus, 1758, as
published in the combination Forficula minor (specific
name of type species of Labia Leach, 1815) ; (j) monstrosus
Drury, [1773], as published in the combination Gry/lus
monstrosus (specific name of type species of Schizo-
dactylus Brullé, 1835); (k) obscura Walker, 1869, as
published in the combination Tarraga obscura (specific

656 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

name of type species of Prophalangopsis Walker, 1871) ;
(1) paradoxus Latreille, [1802—1803], as published in the
combination Tridactylus paradoxus (specific name of
type species of Tridactylus Olivier, 1789) ; (m) puncta-
tissima Bosc, 1792, as published in the combination
Locusta punctatissima (specific name of type species of
Leptophyes Fieber, 1852) ; (n) religiosus Linnaeus, 1758,
as published in the combination Gryllus_religiosus
(specific name of type species of Mantis Linnaeus, 1767) ;
(0) rossia Rossi, 1790, as published in the combination
Mantis rossia (specific name of type species of Bacillus
Le Peletier de Saint-Fargeau & Serville, 1825) ; (p) serrata
Fabricius, 1793, as published in the combination Locusta
serrata (specific name of type species of Saga Char-
pentier, 1825) ; (q) siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, as published
in the combination Gryllus siccifolius (specific name of
type species of Phyllium Illiger, 1798); (x) stridulus
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus
stridulus (specific name of type species of Psophus Fieber,
1853) ; (s) talpa Burmeister, 1838, as published in the
combination Stenopelmatus talpa (specific name of type
species of Stenopelmatus Burmeister, 1838) ; (t) talpoides
Walker, 1871, as published in the combination Hemimerus
talpoides (specific name of type species of Hemimerus
Walker, 1871) ; (u) tenuis Perty, 1832, as published in the ~
combination Mastax tenuis (specific name of type species
of Eumastax Burr, 1899).

(2) The under-mentioned generic names are hereby
placed on the Official Index of Rejected and Invalid
Generic Names in Zoology as Names Nos. 222 and 223
respectively :—(a)Psopha Fieber, 1852 (a junior homonym
of Psopha Billberg, 1828); (b) Sphingonothus Fieber,
1852 (an Invalid Original Spelling for Sphingonotus
Picber S52),

DIRECTION 5 657

I.—THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE PRESENT
* DIRECTION ”

The present Direction contains the fifth instalment of decisions
taken by the International Commission on Zoological Nomen-
clature under the General Directive given to it by the Thirteenth
International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that it should
review the Rulings given in all its previous Opinions for the
purpose of placing on the various Official Lists and Official
Indexes scientific names dealt with in those Opinions and the
titles of books similarly dealt with. The first and third
instalment (Directions 1 and 3) contained decisions taken by the
International Commission after reviewing the Rulings given in
Opinions 182—194, the first thirteen Opinions included in volume 3
of the present work ; the second and fourth instalments (Direc-
tions 2 and 4) contained decisions taken after the review of
Opinions 161—181 and 134—160, exclusive cf Opinion 149,
respectively. The present Direction contains the decisions taken
by the Commission after reviewing the Ruling given in Opinion
149, which it was considered could more conveniently be dealt
with as a separate unit owing to the large number of names
involved. The present Direction concludes the review by the
Commission of the Rulings given in Opinions 134—181, the
Opinions comprised in volume 2 of the present work, save as
regards certain individual items which, as explained in the
Directions concerned, have been reserved by the Commission
for individual treatment at a later date.

2. On 5th April 1954, Mr. Francis Hemming, as Secretary,
submitted to the Commission the following note covering the
annexed Draft of a Direction embodying his proposals for the
codification, in accordance with the decision of the Paris Con-
gress, of the Ruling given by the Commission in its Opinion 149 :—

** Opinion”? 149; Addition of names to the ‘‘ Official Lists ’’ and
** Official Indexes ’’ under the General Directive issued to the
Commission by the Thirteenth International Congress of
Zoology, Paris, 1948

NOTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

The Members of the Commission will have observed that in the
covering note to Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)4 (submitted herewith)

658 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

[ explained (in Note 9) that separate proposals would be submitted for
the codification of the Ruling given in Opinion 149 (addition to the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology of the names of twenty-one
genera of the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta) ). I did not then submit
proposals relating to the foregoing Opinion partly because of the large
number of names involved and partly because I had thought it desirable,
before doing so, to consult Dr. B. P. Uvarov, C.M.G., D.Sc., F.R.S.
(Director, Anti-Locust Research Centre, London) for the purpose of
confirming that the specific name of the type species of each of the genera
dealt with in the above Opinion was in every case the ‘oldest available
names (both objectively and subjectively) for the species concerned.

2. I have now been advised by Dr. Uvarov that the twenty-one
specific names concerned are the oldest available for the species con-
cerned, and I accordingly now submit herewith a Draft Direction
for the placing of these names on the Official List of Specific Names in
Zoology. In the same Draft Direction I have included a proposal
that the name Psopha Fieber, 1852, should be placed on the Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology. Reference
to Opinion 149 will show (: 154—155) that this name is invalid, as it is
a junior homonym of Psopha Billberg, 1828, and that it was for this
reason that the variant form Psophus Fieber, 1853, was placed on the
Official List in place of the foregoing name.

3. Once a decision has been taken on the Draft Direction now sub-
mitted, the codification of the Opinions included in volume 2 of the
work “ Opinions and Declarations’ will have been completed, and
it will be possible at once to prepare and publish the long-overdue
Index Part for this volume.

Annexe to the Note by the Secretary covering
Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5

ADDITION TO THE ‘* OFFICIAL LISTS ”? AND ** OFFICIAL
INDEXES ”? OF THE NAMES DEALT WITH IN
** OPINION ” 149

Draft Direction

In accordance with the General Directive issued to the Commission
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948, that
it should place on the appropriate Official Lists and Official Indexes
scientific names dealt with in Opinions rendered prior to that date, the
following names dealt with in Opinion 149 are hereby placed on the
under-mentioned Official Lists and Official Indexes :—

(1) The under-mentioned specific names (being the names of the type
species of the twenty-one genera, the names of which were placed on

DIRECTION 5 659

the Official List of Generic Names in Zoology under Opinion 149) are
hereby placed on the Official List of Specific Names in Zoology :—
(a) rossia Rossi, 1790, as published in the combination Mantis rossia ;
(b) aptera Charpentier, 1825, as published in the combination Forficula
aptera ; (c) tenuis Perty, 1832, as published in the combination Mastax
tenuis; (d) glabra Herbst, 1786, as published in the combination
Locusta glabra; (e) maculicollis Serville, 1831, as published in the
combination Gryllacris maculicollis ; (f) gryllotalpa Linnaeus, 1758,
as published in the combination Gryllus gryllotalpa; (g) talpoides
Walker, 1871, as published in the combination Hemimerus talpoides ;
(h) minor Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Forficula
minor ; (i) punctatissima Bosc, 1792. as published in the combination
Locusta punctatissima ; (j) religiosus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the
combination Gryllus religiosus; (k) acervorum Panzer, [1799], as
published in the combination Blatta acervorum; (l) caerulescens
Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus caerulescens ;
(m) siccifolius Linnaeus, 1758, as published in the combination Gryllus
siccifolius ; (n) obscura Walker, 1869, as published in the combination
Tarraga obscura ; (0) gigantea Klug, 1820, as published in the combina-
tion Proscopia gigantea ; (p) stridulus Linnaeus, 1758, as published in
the combination Gryllus stridulus ; (q) serrata Fabricius, 1793, as
published in the combination Locusta serrata ; (t) monstrosus Drury,
[1773], as published in the combination Gryllus monstrosus ; (Ss) caeru-
lans Linnaeus, 1767, as published in the combination Gryllus caerulans ;
(t) talpa Burmeister, 1838, as published in the combination Steno-
pelmatus talpa; (u) paradoxus Latreille, [1802—1803], as published
in the combination Tridactylus paradoxus.

(2) The under-mentioned generic name is hereby placed on the
Official Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ;
Psopha Fieber, 1852, (junior homonym of Psopha Billberg, 1828).

Il.—DECISION TAKEN BY THE INTERNATIONAL
COMMISSION ON ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

3. Issue of Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 : Concurrently with
the submission to the Commission of the Draft Direction repro-
duced in the annexe to the note by the Secretary reproduced in
paragraph 2 above, a Call for a Vote, numbered Voting Paper
V.P.(O.M.)(54)5, was issued on 5th April 1954 under the One-
Month Rule. In this Voting Paper each Member of the Com-
mission was asked (1) to state whether he agreed “that, in

660 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

conformity with the General Directive relating to the recording
on the various Official Lists and Official Indexes of decisions in
regard to particular names and particular books taken by the
Commission prior to 1948, issued to the International Com-
mission by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology,
Paris, 1948, the entries recording such decisions taken in Opinion
149 specified in the Draft Direction annexed to the statement
submitted by the Secretary simultaneously with the present
Voting Paper, should be made, as proposed, in the Official Lists
and Official Indexes concerned ’’, and (2), if he did not so agree,
as regards any given item, to indicate the item concerned.

4. The Prescribed Voting Period : As the foregoing Voting Paper
was issued under the One-Month Rule the prescribed Voting
Period closed on 5th May 1954.

5. Particulars of the Voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 :
The state of the voting on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5 at the
close of the prescribed Voting Period was as follows :—

(a) Affirmative Votes had been given by the following seventeen
(17) Commissioners (arranged in the order in which Votes
were received) :

Holthuis; Lemche; Vokes; Hering; Bonnet ;
Dymond ;_ Sylvester-Bradley ; Mertens; Cabrera ;
Esaki ; Stoll ; Jaczewski; Riley ; Pearson ; Hemming ;
Bradley (J. C.) ; Boschma ;

(b) Negative Votes :

None ;

do Amaral, Hanko.

* After the close of the Prescribed Voting Period affirmative Votes were
received from Commissioner do Amaral and Commissioner Hanko.

DIRECTION 5 661

6. Declaration of Result of Vote: On 6th May 1954,
Mr. Hemming, Secretary to the International Commission,
acting as Returning Officer for the Vote taken on Voting Paper
V.P.(O.M.)(54)5, signed a Certificate that the Votes cast were
as set out in paragraph 5 above and declaring that the proposal
submitted in the foregoing Voting Paper had been duly adopted
and that the decision so taken was the decision of the International
Commission in the matter aforesaid.

7. Minute by the Secretary regarding the addition to the “* Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology” of an
Invalid Original Spelling for a name dealt with in “ Opinion”? 149 :
When preparing the Ruling required to give effect to the vote
taken by the Commission on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5,
the Secretary on Ist June 1954 placed on the Commission’s File
(File Z.N.(G.) 67) relating to this case the following Minute
dealing with a point which had not been expressly raised in the
foregoing Voting Paper :—

Insertion in the forthcoming ‘‘ Direction ’’ codifying the Ruling given
in ‘‘ Opinion ”’ 149 of a Ruling placing on the ‘‘ Official Index of
Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology ’”’ an Invalid
Original Spelling of a generic name placed on the ‘* Official
List of Generic Names in Zoology ’’ by the Ruling
given in that ‘‘ Opinion ”’

MINUTE by FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,
Secretary to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature

It will be necessary in the forthcoming Direction codifying the Ruling
given in Opinion 149 to take account of a small consequential effect
of a correction published in 1945 of an incorrect entry inadvertently
included in the foregoing Opinion when first published in 1943. The
facts in regard to this matter are the following. Twenty-one generic
names in the Order Orthoptera (Class Insecta) were placed on the
Official List of Generic Names in Zoology by the Ruling given in
Opinion 149. Of these one was the generic name published by Fieber
in 1852 with the defective spelling Sphingonothus. By an unfortunate
oversight this name was included in the above Opinion under the
foregoing incorrect spelling instead of under the emended spelling
Sphingonotus. This oversight was corrected in a Supplementary Note
published in 1945 (Ops. Decls. int. Comm. zool. Nomencl. 2 : (15)—
(18) ). The publication of the foregoing Note secured the substitution

662 OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS

on the Official List of the emended spelling Sphingonotus in place of the
Invalid Original Spelling Sphingonothus.

2. The action described above completed all the action in this matter
that was necessary in 1945 but, as the result of two decisions taken
by the Thirteenth International Congress of Zoology, Paris, 1948,
supplementary action in one regard is now called for. The decisions
referred to above are :—(1) The Paris Congress established an Official
Index of Rejected and Invalid Generic Names in Zoology and directed
that all invalid names dealt with by the Commission in its Opinions
should be inscribed in this Index. (2) The Congress further directed
the Commission to review all Opinions previously rendered by it for
the purpose of complying with the foregoing, and certain other,
procedural decisions then taken. Under the above decisions the
spelling Sphingonothus, rejected by the Commission as an Invalid
Original Spelling for the name so published by Fieber in 1852, now
falls automatically to be placed on the Official Index established by the
Paris Congress.

8. On 3rd June 1954 Mr. Hemming prepared the Ruling given
in the present Direction and at the same time signed a Certificate
that the terms of that Ruling were in complete accord with those
of the proposal approved by the International Commission in its
Vote on Voting Paper V.P.(O.M.)(54)5, as clarified in one respect
by the Minute reproduced in paragraph 7 above.

9. The following are the original references for the names
placed on Official Lists and Official Indexes by the Ruling given
in the present Direction :—

acervorum, Blatta, Panzer, [1799], Faun. Ins. germ. (68) : tab. 24

aptera, Forficula, Charpentier, 1825, Hor. Ent. : 69

caerulans, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1767, Syst. Nat. (ed. 12) 1(2) : 701

caerulescens, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432

gigantea, Proscopia, Klug, 1820, Hor. phys. Berol. : 18

glabra, Locusta, Herbst, 1786, in Fuessly, Arch. Ins. 7 : 193

gryllotalpa, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 428

maculicollis, Gryllacris, Serville, 1831, Ann. Sci. nat. 22(86) : 139

minor, Forficula, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 423

monstrosus, Gryllus, Drury, [1773], I/l. nat. Hist. 2 : index & 81

obscura, Tarraga, Walker, 1869, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit. Mus.
1 : 100

paradoxus, Tridactylus, Latreille, [1802—1803], in Sonnini’s
Buffon, Hist. nat. gén. partic, Crust. Ins. 3: 276

DIRECTION 5 663

Psopha Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2

punctatissima, Locusta, Bosc, 1792, Actes Soc. Hist. nat. Paris
1(1) : 45

religiosus, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 426

rossia, Mantis, Rossi, 1790, Faun. etrusc. 1 : 259

serrata, Locusta, Fabricius, 1793, Ent. syst. 2 : 43

siccifolius, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 425

Spingonothus Fieber, 1852, in Kelch, Grundl. Orth. Obersches. : 2

stridulus, Gryllus, Linnaeus, 1758, Syst. Nat. (ed. 10) 1 : 432

talpa, Stenopelmatus, Burmeister, 1838, Handb. Ent. 2(2) (No. 1) :
721

talpoides, Hemimerus, Walker, 1871, Cat. Dermapt. Saltat. Brit.
Mus. 5 Suppl. Dermapt. Salt. : 2

tenuis, Mastax, Perty, 1832, Del. Anim. artic. Brasil (2) : 123

10. The prescribed procedures were duly complied with by
the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature in
dealing with the present case, and the present Direction is
accordingly hereby rendered in the name of the said International
Commission by the under-signed Francis Hemming, Secretary
to the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature,
in virtue of all and every the powers conferred upon him in that
behalf.

11. The present Direction shall be known as Direction Five (5)
of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature.

DONE in London, this Twelfth day of June, Nineteen Hundred
and Fifty-Four.

Secretary to the International Commission
on Zoological Nomenclature

FRANCIS HEMMING

NOTICE TO SUBSCRIBERS

It is expected that this volume will be complete on the publication
of three further Parts (Parts 55—57). Of these, Parts 55 and 56 will,
it is anticipated, be devoted to two further Directions codifying decisions
taken in Opinions included in the present volume. Part 57 will contain
the Title Page and Indexes for this volume. |

Printed in England by Mretcatre & CoopEeR LimITED, 10-24 Scrutton St., London EC 2

OPINIONS AND DECLARATIONS
RENDERED BY THE INTER-
NATIONAL COMMISSION ON

ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

Edited by
FRANCIS HEMMING, C.M.G., C.B.E.,

Secretary to the Commission

VOLUME 2. Part 55. Pp. 665—684

DIRECTION 6

Addition to the Official List of Family-Group Names in
Zoology of the names MEROPIDAE (Class Aves) and
MEROPEIDAE and TINGIDAE (Class Insecta)

LONDON :

_ Issued 6th December, 1954

INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON
ZOOLOGICAL NOMENCLATURE

COMPOSITION AT THE TIME OF THE ADOPTION OF THE
RULING GIVEN IN DIRECTION 6